According to Kansas guitarist Rich Williams, “Only a handful of Kansas die-hards would be into new material by us. The bitter reality is that nobody cares if we come up with anything new. The days of the epic Kansas albums are probably over."

Granted, Williams’ comments focus mainly on his perception that most Kansas fans really don’t expect or want a new album, but he does mention a couple of other classic acts as well. “Does anyone care about a new Yes album or a new Genesis album?,” he asks.

Well, I guess it may well depend on the energy and creativity that any given classic rock group has left in them. For Kansas, it seems that it’s over. Something that does not seem to bother Williams all that much. It would be interesting to hear how Chris Squire of Yes might react to that statement.

Speaking strictly for myself, I’d have to go along with Williams as far as Kansas is concerned, but I think he may be painting with too broad a brush if he thinks all classic rock acts are tapped out these days. Today’s Kansas is not the Kansas I remember. Gone are Kerry Livgren, Robby Steinhardt and Dave Hope who were – at the time – fully half of the group that we knew as Kansas. Livgren was a major creative force within the group at the time.

On the other hand, considering a group like Aerosmith or Rush, whose original lineup remains in place, I have to say that I do care about whether or not they continue to produce new music. Despite my suburban Boston upbringing, I was never a big Aerosmith fan, but as a longtime Rush fan, I eagerly look forward to every new album they begin working on. Myself, and many other fans believe that they still have what it takes.

Just yesterday we noted the chart-topping success of Bob Dylan’s latest album. I think that pretty well proves there are a lot of fans out there who want to see new material from their old favorites. Williams may be right about Kansas, but he’s straying a bit too far into fantasy land if he believes that most classic rock fans don’t give a hoot if they ever see another new album from their classic favorites.

The full story and all of Rich Williams comments can be seen at Kansas.com.

I do, provided it's good material.

One thing that's bugged me about Aerosmith is that they haven't done an album of new material in eight years. They've had some new songs tacked on to some compilations, but no full album.

If the band is committed to writing new material that's good, then I care, yes.

Ding, ding, ding!

The thing too many of these guys overlook is that it's not always the band we love that's putting out the new material, or they do a half-hearted thing and expect us to treat it like it classic material.

When Kiss did "Psycho Circus", there was a lot of buzz and a lot of people were looking forward to it because it was the first new album with the original line-up in 17-18 years. Then the stories started to trickle out - Peter's not on all of it, Ace isn't on a lot of it, blah, blah, blah. And it was a lot of sub-par material (a Pittsburgh DJ played the title track and said, "It's catchy! It sucks, but it's catchy.").

Fans are smart enough to realize that later albums aren't going to draw from the hunger and desire that drives a band in its early days, but there have been enough acts that have put out material in later days (Rush), or artists that have come up with material in situations that took them out of their usual zone (Damn Yankees). It's possible. But the artists have to be truthful with themselves as well - you can't just slap Kansas on any piece of crap and expect "Leftoverture" sales.

Alan

Depends on the band and/or artists involved. I've pretty much given up on Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey ever doing anything new and interesting ever again, but if Mick Jagger and Keith Richards ever barf up a new Rolling Stones studio album, I'll likely buy it the first day.

Here's the thing to me-buying it is the first hurdle, but then, do the fans go back and listen to the new album later on? Usually not. If it's a really good piece of work I will, but if it's mediocre or crap, it will just collect dust.
I admit-I listen to the vintage stuff way more, especially remasters which is primarily what I buy now. I still buy new albums from my favorite artists though, but usually with a grain of salt (it's cheaper that way).
Rush are my favorite band (if it's not Thin Lizzy), and while I think they still make music worthwhile, I really don't like Vapor Trails and Snakes & Arrows is better, but not great. I rarely listen to these, but play Signals, Permanent Waves, A Farewell To Kings. etc. all the time. I also like the older albums because they're not bloated-a nice 35-45 minutes will do just fine.
However, there have been new/newer albums by bands like Metallica, Echo & Bunnymen, Asia, Bauhaus, David Bowie, Black Sabbath (aka Heaven & Hell), The Cure, Tom Waits, Peter Gabriel, Iron Maiden, Journey, Oasis, etc. that are among their finest, but it is rare to have that happen.

For me, it depends on the quality of the music. It's been years since I heard anything from Kansas I liked; but 1 example of the flip side is Bruce Cockburn's last 3 albums are his best since the early 80's.

Y'know, I had another listen to "Endless Wire" a couple weeks back, probably the first since the month after it came out, and I liked it much more this time around. It had been freed of any expectations I had for it, and I'd say it's probably on par with It's Hard. Still nowhere near as good as any of the stuff they did while Keith was alive, but easily as good as the majority of Townshend's solo stuff, and all of Daltrey's.

I'm actually becoming quite fond of "In The Ether" now that I've gotten over the shock of how Pete sings it, and "Mirrored Door" and "Not Enough" can stand proud next to any of their post-Moon singles.

The last CD I enjoyed by a so called classic rock band was 'Hittin' The Note' - Allman Brothers Band, recorded over 5 or so years ago.

The Stones last CD also deserves a mention.

Neil Young continues to be prolific but the quality has dropped after each release over the past 10 years.

Depends on the act, I guess. I'm pretty sure the Eagles album did pretty good. Springsteen seems to do okay with new albums. Dylan, Young do pretty well. Guys like Jackson Browne dependably turn out a decent new album every three years or so.

Bands like Kansas that had a pretty short run at the top aren't going to draw a lot of attention -- I don't own any of their records and only know a couple of their songs. I think a new album by a more popular band like Genesis or classic lineup Styx or classic lineup Journey would do pretty well -- I don't own any of their records, either, but I know at least a dozen songs by each.

But of course quality is the main issue. A really great album makes a big difference.

Two of the best albums I've heard in the last 12 months are the recent releases by Paul McCartney (as The Fireman) and Brian Wilson. It isn't because I have blinders on in regards to these artists. They've both done things in their solo careers that I thought were less than spectacular, but these two albums really caught my ear. I felt like they were trying to create something more than just by-the-numbers albums of unrelated songs.

Does U2 count as a classic rock act? They manage a hit album every few years.

Yes they do......there are alot of U2 songs on classic rock stations limited playlist.

Classic rock = the entire Led Zeppelin catalog and 40 other songs.

I'm not big on most classic rock in general - mostly 60's garage and punk. I'll listen to shows like Underground Garage for new material I havent heard.

I'll blindly buy any new albums by favorite artists (Bob Dylan). Others, I'll have to read reviews (which doesn't always work) or listen to the 30 second audio clips on Amazon.

More like ten Led Zeppelin songs, if that.

That's a good point, Charles. The artists I mentioned (Paul McCartney, Brian Wilson) are probably not considered "classic rock" by that definition.The only Beatles song that classic rock stations ever seemed to play was "Birthday" and I don't think the Beach Boys ever rocked hard enough for them.

Guess I'm more of a Classic Pop guy when it comes right down to it...

Tryin' To Make It Real — But Compared To What? Dept.

Do classic rock fans care about new material? The answer to that is not simple, and the answer is an individual thing. If you're a true fan, like Starz Rider is for Rush, their sound will still appeal to you. But will they ever recreate the feeling he got from "Moving Pictures" or "Signals"? Will their next albums, good as they may be, suck into his bones in the same way those albums did? That answer is easy — no, they won't.

Here's the thing — "classic" is all about time and place. The Stones' "Street Fightin' Man" and "Sympathy for the Devil" would be fine if released today, but they "belong" to 1968. If released 40 years later, they would be out of context. "Sgt. Pepper's" and "Dark Side of the Moon" are classics, in part, because no one had ever heard anything like that before. Sure, a 20-something person can listen to those albums and find them amazing. But if you were there when they first came out, they were freaking amazing! I suspect you're no longer singing "You may be right, I may be crazy" or "I want my MTV" with your buddies, and if you did, it would feel a bit archaic. Would Journey be a monster party band today? Would "Hotel California" still be a mega-hit if it hadn't been released until this year? What will Nirvana mean to young people in 2030? Time and place, time and place.

So, expecting the Stones to repeat a "Paint It Black" or the Kinks to somehow recreate the feeling of "You Really Got Me" is a tall, unrealistic dream without some sort of time machine. Either that, or they're going to have to do something remarkably relevant to today's world — something no one's heard before. Neil Young regularly tries to reinvent himself, and Johnny Cash showed he was quite adaptable to changing times, but those examples are few and far between and still don't quite achieve the pure definition of classic. I sometimes think it's like baseball. You can still hit a home run or pitch a shutout once in awhile, but your MVP years are behind you. Time and place. You may still be good friends with the muse, but you're not shacking up together anymore.

"The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older..."

Well said, Dustydan -- an excellent first post. Welcome!

I think you undercut your own argument here. "Dark Side of the Moon" is great because someone who knows nothing about Pink Floyd will listen to it for the first time and be blown away. It's pretty much guarenteed they won't have the same response to "Division Bell." Classic albums are not just classic because of their context but also because they really are great albums. Take them out of their context and they're still great (though you're right that they need their context to be CLASSIC).

It's common for artists to do their great work young, in many fields including music. It's not just that we get used to their perspective or they capture the zeitgeist of the day or something. The quality is pretty clearly different, which is odd because in most cases they actually become more technically proficient with age. There are a lot of theories about why this is, chief among them being artists get fat and happy and are not trying as hard, but I don't think anybody really knows why.

I know a young teenager who is discovering classic rock from the seventies. The teenager's response when listening to old Heart songs? "Why don't they make music like this anymore?"

I've often stopped to wonder if the extent to which an album needed to be placed into the context in which it was released should be considered a factor in how the music is considered. I've certainly heard no small amount of people who were alive in 1967 attempting to explain the significance of "Sgt. Pepper"; at the same time, I wonder how people in the future will judge a title such as "Chinese Democracy" outside of all of the baggage that surrounded its release. Another album that pops into my head is Bowie's "Ziggy Stardust"--I think it's a great album, but never felt that it ever sounded particularly radical at all, but a deluxe edition came out a few years ago with a booklet patiently explaining how outrageous it was back in the day. Elvis Presley is another example--back in the 1990's, when his face was put on a postage stamp, there were still people who despised him for what they saw from him on Ed Sullivan back in 1956,

Other examples: "Another Side Of Bob Dylan", not one of my favorites, nonetheless served as a warning signal to folkies that Bob was burning out on their movement. I remember finding a 99-cent cassette version of Pete Townshend's "Another Scoop" in a cut-out bin back in 1990; in the pre-internet age, I went home and played it several times but was unable to understand from listening exactly what it was (home recorded demos). "Metamorphosis" by the Stones was another strange recording I found on a cassette with absolutely no explainatory information written on the card. And of course, "Magic Bus" by the Who and "Flowers" by the Stones--in the pre-internet/information superhighway days, I had no concept of the whole UK vs. US release thing of the 1960's, and only wondered why they contained music found on other albums.

I know I'm big time in the minority here, but other then "Time", I've never particularly liked Dark Side. I rate Wish you Were Here, Animals, & almost any pre-Dark Side Floyd over it. I'm also not fond of The Wall.

Appropo of nothing in particular:

My brother was on the rugby team in college and they had a road game, so they all drove out to this other school early one Saturday and arrived early. Strung out from getting up early (most of them quite hung over) and the long trip, they all sat around waiting and somebody put Dark Side of the Moon on. By the time they got to "The Great Gig in the Sky" the entire team was completely zoned out if not out cold. Then the other team arrives, charging off the bus, ready to kill kill kill. My brother's team could barely sit up, let alone play rugby, and were subsequently crushed both metaphorically and literally.