Classic bands of the last ten years or so......

63schoefflin

There's so much great music out there today it's unreal. MMJ, Jack White, and Ryan Adams all amazing songwriters and I've never seen Adams live but if you haven't seen Jack or My Morning Jacket then you are missing out big time.

FM Radio isn't even close to being the #1 way of discovering good new music. 40 years ago everyone only had access to a handful of bands that they were exposed to while nowadays you can go out and keep looking and looking through tons of shit to come out with a bunch of gems lol. I just wish I had figured this out 5 years ago because I wasted a few years of being oblivious to a bunch of bands.

musicismylife78

Oh well! It's all subjective for the most part. But to think Kanye or Timberlake can / will ever stack up against yesterdays musicians .[/quote]


It is subjective. Look at the big beatles thread here. Some people actually said they felt the beatles were not good or were overrated. So even with the greatest band of all time, not everyone agrees.

As far as Kanye is concerned, prior to going solo, he was producer on one of the biggest hip hop albums of all time Jay-Z's The Blueprint. That album appeared near the top, around 3 or so on most lists of most important albums of the 2000's. Kanye's released 6 albums so far. The 6th one, just the other day. All 5 are reguarded as classics. Most people already consider him one of the greatest mc's and hip hop artists of all time. Go through his albums, every single one is on some best of, or greatest albums list.

brianlux

There is definitely some great music out there but I think the audiences are more limited, many of the bands have more regional appeal. Maybe that's a good thing. But as far as "classic" as in The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, The Who, The Ramones, Nirvana, Pearl Jam... I don't think we've seen anybody that big in the last decade. Even White Stripes goes back to the 90's so I don't count Jack Black- nothing he has done has gone as big as White Stripes (though it's still great stuff.) So I guess it depends on how you define "classic".

Ledbetterman10

brianlux wrote:

I don't count Jack Black- nothing he has done has gone as big as White Stripes (though it's still great stuff.) So I guess it depends on how you define "classic".

You said Jack Black but meant Jack White....which is interesting because I always felt that Jack Black should be Jack White (because of his good-natured sense of humor) and that Jack White should be Jack Black (because of his "tourtued genius/woe is me" act)

brianlux

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

I don't count Jack Black- nothing he has done has gone as big as White Stripes (though it's still great stuff.) So I guess it depends on how you define "classic".

You said Jack Black but meant Jack White....which is interesting because I always felt that Jack Black should be Jack White (because of his good-natured sense of humor) and that Jack White should be Jack Black (because of his "tourtued genius/woe is me" act)

Oops! I've done that before. Oh, those monochrome names!

lukin2006

musicismylife78 wrote:

Oh well! It's all subjective for the most part. But to think Kanye or Timberlake can / will ever stack up against yesterdays musicians .

It is subjective. Look at the big beatles thread here. Some people actually said they felt the beatles were not good or were overrated. So even with the greatest band of all time, not everyone agrees.

As far as Kanye is concerned, prior to going solo, he was producer on one of the biggest hip hop albums of all time Jay-Z's The Blueprint. That album appeared near the top, around 3 or so on most lists of most important albums of the 2000's. Kanye's released 6 albums so far. The 6th one, just the other day. All 5 are reguarded as classics. Most people already consider him one of the greatest mc's and hip hop artists of all time. Go through his albums, every single one is on some best of, or greatest albums list.[/quote]

Who gives a rats ass about statistics ... because if we are going by statistics then I believe Nickelback is close to the top or top of albums sold since 2000, so I guess they are a classic band .

facepollution

musicismylife78 wrote:

these posts always make me laugh. I assume most of us on the board came of age during the grunge heyday. And that shows because Other Music is pretty laughable in terms of discussing quality music being made.

To clarify, my reasoning for starting the thread was just to get some other perspectives on the state of the current music scene, and some ideas on why some artists seem to sell so well, while others don't, despite being critically acclaimed.

musicismylife78 wrote:

This is the golden age of music. You just have to look. Its all around. Pitchfork. Stereogum. Brooklyn Vegan. Gorilla vs Bear.

Pitchfork?! They represent everything I HATE about musical journalism.

musicismylife78 wrote:

I think the indie scene from 2003-2013 has been unrivaled. Its the music scene thats taken over the world. And I find myself completely overwhelmed with the amount of music we get each year.

To each their own. My issue with the indie scene is that it became so heavily style over substance that people seemed to lose any sense of quality control. That's not to say there weren't some stand-out artists, but they are far out-weighed by pretentious posers.

I see you mentioned Adele's 21 record too, which I think is a great example of what I'm talking about. Did it sell so well just because it's a great record? In which case why do none of the other good records sell so well? Or is its success down to something else? It's not like she came from a talent show like Susan Boyle did.

In terms of rock music, there just doesn't seem to be a new crop of big selling bands - I'm talking the kind of bands that could headline a festival, for example - and pull it off.

63schoefflin

About the Kanye thing I've given up trying to defend or turn most people on to rap or hip hop since most people just have a hatred for it. And I can't blame them bc 99% of it is unlistenable garbage but you are right... Old school Kanye is fantastic. Same with Jay Z and go listen to old Nas... It's unbelievable. It's a shame that rap has turned into what it is now, whatever the hell that may be lol. Because I sure as hell can't even figure it out.

But yeah no band will ever have a mass appeal like those old classics because of the exposure. Most 10 year olds now still grow up with the Beatles, Stones, Who, etc. so they really don't have to look hard to find them. I'm 25 and I've seen the kinds of followings a few bands from my generation have and it will be interesting to see what their legacy will be in 20 years or so. It's up to us to do as good a job to turn the young ones on to good music regardless or when it was made

Tim Simmons

facepollution wrote:

I see you mentioned Adele's 21 record too, which I think is a great example of what I'm talking about. Did it sell so well just because it's a great record? In which case why do none of the other good records sell so well? Or is its success down to something else? It's not like she came from a talent show like Susan Boyle did.

It sold well because it was a great record that also had huge crossover appeal due to accessibility. There are a dozen great records that come out every year, but its easy to figure out why they don't sell well.

facepollution wrote:

In terms of rock music, there just doesn't seem to be a new crop of big selling bands - I'm talking the kind of bands that could headline a festival, for example - and pull it off.

Well rock has been dead for several years and it doesn't really seem to be coming back. Or at least the form of it has morphed. Indie rock seems to be its current incarnation. Sure there are outliers (Strokes, KoL, whatever), but the publics interest is not in rock music like 1992, or 1974). And if poeple are using those as the benchmarks and the parameters, then of course there are no classic bands today.


I very much think a Kanye west can be regarded as classic in 20-30 years because what he is doing now is so significant. Justin Timberlake, eh, hes great, but he needs some more LPs under his belt. he has the hits for sure, but ABBA also has hits (not knocking ABBA, but they are primarily a singles band as opposed to an albums band, unless you are one of those Steve Hoffman Forum weirdos).

Tim Simmons

The other thing to remember is how novel bands like Pink Floyd, The Beatles, the Stones and Zeppelin were in the 60s and 70s. It was groundbreaking at the time. like REM was groundbreaking in the 80s Like Nirvana was groundbreaking in the 90s. But rock music is 50 years old now, and it can only go so far. Some artists push its boundaries a little and get recognized for it (Radiohead), but they won't be able to achieve what those bands in the 60s and 70s did, because basically it had been done before.

I guess what it comes down to are the metrics you are setting for "classic" is it sales, size of tours, hits groundbreaking in the genre, critically acclaimed, influential in their time, influential to future generations.

Someone who holds these bands as the standard and what they achieved as the metrics for classic, well, then thats an impossible bar to clear because a band today cannot clear that (And if we are being honest here, Pearl Jam wouldn't clear that hurdle because what they did was basically a rehash of 70s rock except they were so popular they spawned imitators thus elevating them to a classic status). But I most certainly believe there have been some classic artists in the past decade, but the only real way to tell is in another 10-15 years when new bands list them as idols.

pookasnake

mfc2006 wrote:

Elliott Smith

YES!!

Also, Iron and Wine.

brianlux

Tim Simmons wrote:

The other thing to remember is how novel bands like Pink Floyd, The Beatles, the Stones and Zeppelin were in the 60s and 70s. It was groundbreaking at the time. like REM was groundbreaking in the 80s Like Nirvana was groundbreaking in the 90s. But rock music is 50 years old now, and it can only go so far. Some artists push its boundaries a little and get recognized for it (Radiohead), but they won't be able to achieve what those bands in the 60s and 70s did, because basically it had been done before.

I guess what it comes down to are the metrics you are setting for "classic" is it sales, size of tours, hits groundbreaking in the genre, critically acclaimed, influential in their time, influential to future generations.

Someone who holds these bands as the standard and what they achieved as the metrics for classic, well, then thats an impossible bar to clear because a band today cannot clear that (And if we are being honest here, Pearl Jam wouldn't clear that hurdle because what they did was basically a rehash of 70s rock except they were so popular they spawned imitators thus elevating them to a classic status). But I most certainly believe there have been some classic artists in the past decade, but the only real way to tell is in another 10-15 years when new bands list them as idols.

This is a great point- one I've thought about many times over the last several years. It brings to mind the question: where does music go from hear? Music has evolved for centuries but- just as with terrestrial exploration, technology and human population- we are in the steep arc of an exponential curve. This implies the idea that there really may be very little territory left to explore. These thoughts both intrigue and, to a degree, disturb me. The antidote to that kind of thinking is remembering that there is enough music already out there to explore to last a lifetime and that even within the possible limitations of genre and style there are vast numbers of voices to add nuance to those genres and styles. Mine for example, had been heard by a very relative few- although there may be a reason for that.

63schoefflin

Hey Tim...JT has the hits, "Dick in a Box" "3-Way" among the timeless classics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7gwX7rjOw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IA_aHsER6c

musicismylife78

its all a matter of doing the legwork to find the good stuff. The decentralized industry and music mechanism makes it so you cant turn on the radio and find the new great band. Although the radio does have some fantastic stuff too. Great bands are alive and well. So is music. Theres plenty of good stuff out there. As I said, if your looking for bands that sounds like Led Zep or the Beatles or the Stones or Dylan, you most likely will be disappointed. If you are looking for amazing bands period, you will be greeted with some amazing albums. Its only looking back that the truly classic stuff can be seen. I guarantee those in the 60's didnt necessarily think the Beatles or Hendrix would be heading top albums and top artists lists 40 years later. They just were enjoying the music.

Or you can spend the rest of your life hoping new bands sound like and have the same impact the beatles and hendrix did.

Sure I get nostalgic for the music of my youth and the feeling it captured. But Kurt Cobain will never exist again. The next Kurt most likely is playing folk music or dubstep anyways, so waiting for a sound like Nevermind is useless since it only ensures I hear one sound at the expense of the fantastic music being made in 2013 that sounds nothing like Nirvana.

musicismylife78

Tim Simmons wrote:

The other thing to remember is how novel bands like Pink Floyd, The Beatles, the Stones and Zeppelin were in the 60s and 70s. It was groundbreaking at the time. like REM was groundbreaking in the 80s Like Nirvana was groundbreaking in the 90s. But rock music is 50 years old now, and it can only go so far. Some artists push its boundaries a little and get recognized for it (Radiohead), but they won't be able to achieve what those bands in the 60s and 70s did, because basically it had been done before.

I guess what it comes down to are the metrics you are setting for "classic" is it sales, size of tours, hits groundbreaking in the genre, critically acclaimed, influential in their time, influential to future generations.

Someone who holds these bands as the standard and what they achieved as the metrics for classic, well, then thats an impossible bar to clear because a band today cannot clear that (And if we are being honest here, Pearl Jam wouldn't clear that hurdle because what they did was basically a rehash of 70s rock except they were so popular they spawned imitators thus elevating them to a classic status). But I most certainly believe there have been some classic artists in the past decade, but the only real way to tell is in another 10-15 years when new bands list them as idols.

good points but I think ultimately Lukin is comparing two different things. Plus things dont have to be classic to be good or worth listening. With the 60's you just had a confluence of events-rapid and extreme social change and a soundtrack that fueled and inspired it made up of the greatest bands in history, dylan, the beatles, stones, the who, neil, hendrix, cream and so on.

The wish that someone or some band would equal the heights of led zep is insane. People in the 60's didnt think dylan was the greatest songwriter of all time, they just thought he was an amazing songwriter. The 2000's have produced a ton of talented artists. Amazing guitarists, songwriters, drummers, and bands. Whether they get considered into that canon of "best artists of all time" remains to be seen.

A band could never reach that many people, and never will again. The sheer amount of music that exists now, and this year, makes it so, their are hundreds and thousands of niche scenes. Look at Arcade Fire. They won Album of the Year in 2012 and should have been the biggest band in the world as a result, but a large portion of the world doesnt know who they are. So you have a synth pop scene thats huge to its adherants but outside that no one knows who they are. The idea of the biggest band in the world can no longer exist. Because theirs so many genres, subgenres, niches and the like. A band having the impact of Nirvana, where millions of teens felt a singer was speaking to and about them couldnt happen anymore.

All of this reminds me of someone watching Godfather 2 and Streetcar and saying "todays movies suck no classic movies have been made in the last decade and all the best movies were made 30/40 years ago".

Thirty Bills Unpaid

musicismylife78 wrote:

All of this reminds me of someone watching Godfather 2 and Streetcar and saying "todays movies suck no classic movies have been made in the last decade and all the best movies were made 30/40 years ago".

Except... there aren't a lot of people saying this. Most people recognize the fact that the quality offered in most new movies has made the older movies seem very inferior. I saw King Kong in the 70s with Jessica Lange and that was awesome to me. Have you seen the new King Kong? Imagine if we could send the Lord of the Rings trilogy through a time capsule and they could show it to the masses in, say, 1974. Minds... Blown. There have been some very novel and notable scripts written to boot!

Which bands today are going to be listened to in 30 years? Is there a Zeppelin/Floyd/Stones/Who... or Pearl Jam/U2/DMB... that has surfaced in the last 10 years? Not to my ears.

lukin2006

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

All of this reminds me of someone watching Godfather 2 and Streetcar and saying "todays movies suck no classic movies have been made in the last decade and all the best movies were made 30/40 years ago".

Except... there aren't a lot of people saying this. Most people recognize the fact that the quality offered in most new movies has made the older movies seem very inferior. I saw King Kong in the 70s with Jessica Lange and that was awesome to me. Have you seen the new King Kong? Imagine if we could send the Lord of the Rings trilogy through a time capsule and they could show it to the masses in, say, 1974. Minds... Blown. There have been some very novel and notable scripts written to boot!

Which bands today are going to be listened to in 30 years? Is there a Zeppelin/Floyd/Stones/Who... or Pearl Jam/U2/DMB... that has surfaced in the last 10 years? Not to my ears.

well said ...

musicismylife78

lukin2006 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

All of this reminds me of someone watching Godfather 2 and Streetcar and saying "todays movies suck no classic movies have been made in the last decade and all the best movies were made 30/40 years ago".

Except... there aren't a lot of people saying this. Most people recognize the fact that the quality offered in most new movies has made the older movies seem very inferior. I saw King Kong in the 70s with Jessica Lange and that was awesome to me. Have you seen the new King Kong? Imagine if we could send the Lord of the Rings trilogy through a time capsule and they could show it to the masses in, say, 1974. Minds... Blown. There have been some very novel and notable scripts written to boot!

Which bands today are going to be listened to in 30 years? Is there a Zeppelin/Floyd/Stones/Who... or Pearl Jam/U2/DMB... that has surfaced in the last 10 years? Not to my ears.

well said ...

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

Again, you seem to have this mistaken notion that in the 60's and 70's people were watching Led Zep or Pink or whoever and saying "my god, this will be remembered in 40 years". Critics, fans and the band didnt think so. Certainly Sgt Peppers caused a big stir when it was released. It wasnt until decades later that people began to think of it as the greatest album ever recorded.

Plus you seem to be ignorant of the fact that alot of art isnt well receieved upon first listen or first run through. And only after several years later and being reevaluated does it get the "classic" stamp of approval. Most likely there were people in the 60's watching Hendrix and saying, "damn this is just okay, but I miss the rockabilly days of old, why isnt there anyone playing "regular" guitar like the Chuck Berry".

Bands take time to mature. When were the beatles viewed by the public as being legendary? u2 were a band years before Joshua Tree when they really blew up and became the biggest band in the world. PJ's legendary status is in large part a result of their 20 plus years of being a band. They were a great band during the grunge days, but no one was calling them legends then. It took years, and some horrific events that they outlasted, for that label to be bestowed on them.

I think Arcade Fire will be a band we tell our grandchildren about. I think we have our dylan;s of our generation. We will be talking about Sufjan, and Conor Oberst and Tallest Man on Earth for decades. Same with Isaac Brock, and Ben Gibbard. Ryan Adams will be talked about. as I said, 2 years ago we witnessed a pop singer Adele come along, those songs will be played on radio and will be staples for decades. I find Sam Beams lyrics as incredibly beautiful as anything being written today. Kanye's work will stand the test of time, he's absolutely someone who fits your criteria. Produced possibly the greatest hip hop album ever for Jay, then went on to make 6 albums of increasing critical acclaim every single one being named by rolling stone, spin, pitchfork, time, etc.. as being a classic.

I think its a mistake to want new bands to be like old bands and have that same impact. One, no band can have the impact those bands had. How in 2013 could a band sell 300 million like Led Zep did? Its just not possible. And how could any band have that much impact anymore? Secondly, all those bands you love, are singular. They had singular visions, even as bands, that were unique, and rare. There was only one Kurt, only one Lennon, only one Dylan, Hendrix, Jagger etc...

I dont think you are looking. Theres always new music. Some new band with the potential to be THAT band. Those bands exist.

Tim Simmons

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Except... there aren't a lot of people saying this./quote]

People say it every year around Oscar time. That the modern best film nominees don't stack up the films of old. It's a pretty appropriate analogy.

Tim Simmons

I'm starting to feel real bad that most people here missed out on LCD Soundsystem.