are there any? cos it seems like bands who started in the 90s (radiohead, suede, boards of canada, grandaddy, built to spill, muse etc) still release decent records (subjective) 20 odd years on.
The Fall spring to mind.
in my head the 70s was an era of bands who just creatively spunked it real quick. i wanna be proven wrong
Depeche Mode had a decent effort at longevity. Not quite 70s though.
The Cure just about squeeze in to the 70s
With The Fall and The Cure having already been mentioned, I’d say a few more of the post-punk lot released good stuff in the 90s - Wire, Siouxsie & The Banshees, P.I.L., Pere Ubu…
Also, Television. Also, and maybe a bit of a cheat, Crazy Horse.
Elton John obviously wasn’t still good in the 90s, but he was massively successful.
why do bands seem to have much more longevity now?
maybe the 70s was just naff
This is an all time banger
Also, David Bowie
What about somebody like Leonard Cohen?
[quote=“yuggy, post:8, topic:15646”]
why do bands seem to have much more longevity now?[/quote]
There were more drugs in the 70s.
don’t like them but Pulp?
Yeah, I can think of a few singer songwriters who fit the bill, Tom Waits for instance. Struggling with actual bands though.
these fit the bill - just artists in general
yeah i guess drugs and naff fm hard rock doesnt really keep artists cool/going/alive
Although probably the naffest band I can think of, did Aerosmith not write their most famous tracks and have their biggest successes in the 89-94 period (Armageddon tune as ludicrously successful postscript)
Definitely easier with solo artists, but when I was getting into rock in the early 90s there were definitely a few 70s acts who were having a second wind creatively/successfully - Motorhead, AC/DC, The Ramones, King Crimson…
This is a great shout.
Pink Floyd lasted from the 60s through to the 90s. Does Led Zeppelin / Robert Plant count as a continuous thing?
Queen (don’t @ me)
New order sort of
Not familiar with much of springsteens 90s stuff but he definitely had big albums in 70s 80s and 90s