Classic doesn't mean you have to like them. To say there aren't are or going to be any classic bands from this era is pretty ludacris.
I guess it depends on how you divide eras. It seems like there has been other time frames that have come and gone without producing obviously legendary artists, but a few have probably always pushed through. I think at the very least the 2000s have produced the fewest classic artists than at any other time. I think it's telling that we're talking about a 13 or 14 year period and we only have a handful, at most, of artist that are really entering the discussion.
So lets get down to it. I think their hasnt been many classic "rock" bands the last decade because there are so many genres and subgenres right now, and classic stuff being made doesnt necessarily easily fit into one category. I think what the 2000's showed is ALOT of interesting stuff is happening, and not all of it is in rock.
Who will we be talking about in 20 years?
Bon Iver-2 classic albums, a musical genius.
Sufjan Stevens-a songwriter thats embarassingly talented, relentlessly creative and not afraid to take risks. He can craft lyrics that will break your heart.
Radiohead-KId A, Amnesiac, HTTT, In Rainbows, TKOL. Every other band in the 2000's is left embarrassed and mouths agape.
The Strokes-possibly the modern era's first indie rock band, prefigured the "brooklyn" and "ny" gold rush that occured later on in the decade. Made converse cool again
Beck-had his 2nd wind, released the landmark Sea Change, his finest hour
The xx-two classic albums, influenced Radiohead, James Blake, dubstep
Sigur Ros-landmark () album. Took rock music to gorgeous new heights
Outkast-Entire catalogue is essentially a most important hip hop albums list. Crafted possibly the greatest pop song of the decade, other than Since U Been Gone, with Hey Ya
Death Cab-Postal Service-Ben Gibbard-one of our best lyricists, one of the reasons indie went mainstream.
Arcade Fire-3 classic albums and a live show that blows every other bands live show out of the water.
Lots of songwriters-Tallest Man on earth, Conor Oberst, Sam Beam,
Damien Rice-the epitome of excellence in singer songwriter genre in the 2000's.
NME's endless list of new bands-Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Pete Doherty,
Kanye West-anyone who doubts his legacy is off their rocker. 6 classic albums. Produced The Blueprint. Every one of his albums is a stone cold classic. Icon. Legend.
Broken Social Scene-prefigured AF's success, You Forgot it In People remains a legendary album. 12 member group where every single person is essential.
Modest Mouse
Classic doesn't mean you have to like them. To say there aren't are or going to be any classic bands from this era is pretty ludacris.
I guess it depends on how you divide eras. It seems like there has been other time frames that have come and gone without producing obviously legendary artists, but a few have probably always pushed through. I think at the very least the 2000s have produced the fewest classic artists than at any other time. I think it's telling that we're talking about a 13 or 14 year period and we only have a handful, at most, of artist that are really entering the discussion.
I couldnt disagree more. Just Google Best albums of the 2000's. Check out some of the lists.
One of the more interesting and important movements in music in the last decade is the streamlining and increasing sophistication and quality of r and b. The Weeknd, and Frank Ocean only came to the fore in the last 2 years. But both have completely changed and altered r and b. The Weeknd put out 3 free mixtapes in a single year, all classics, and Frank Ocean put out a mixtape in 2011 then a full length. If im not mistaken all 5 of the albums by these artists were free downloads. Whats shocking is the hype and craziness when each album was posted online, was absolutely nuts. A good case could have been made for The Weeknd putting out 3 flawless albums in one year and HOB being album of the year in 2011, and I think its fair to say alot of people felt Channel Orange was album of the year last year.
I could see Frank Ocean and the Weeknd having long careers.
Yet another example of important and interesting music being made, but not rock.
One of the more interesting and important movements in music in the last decade is the streamlining and increasing sophistication and quality of r and b. The Weeknd, and Frank Ocean only came to the fore in the last 2 years. But both have completely changed and altered r and b. The Weeknd put out 3 free mixtapes in a single year, all classics, and Frank Ocean put out a mixtape in 2011 then a full length. If im not mistaken all 5 of the albums by these artists were free downloads. Whats shocking is the hype and craziness when each album was posted online, was absolutely nuts. A good case could have been made for The Weeknd putting out 3 flawless albums in one year and HOB being album of the year in 2011, and I think its fair to say alot of people felt Channel Orange was album of the year last year.
I could see Frank Ocean and the Weeknd having long careers.
Yet another example of important and interesting music being made, but not rock.
Frank Ocean needs some serious serious help with his live act. If he can do that then he will be fine.
So lets get down to it. I think their hasnt been many classic "rock" bands the last decade because there are so many genres and subgenres right now, and classic stuff being made doesnt necessarily easily fit into one category. I think what the 2000's showed is ALOT of interesting stuff is happening, and not all of it is in rock.
Who will we be talking about in 20 years?
Bon Iver-2 classic albums, a musical genius.
Sufjan Stevens-a songwriter thats embarassingly talented, relentlessly creative and not afraid to take risks. He can craft lyrics that will break your heart.
Radiohead-KId A, Amnesiac, HTTT, In Rainbows, TKOL. Every other band in the 2000's is left embarrassed and mouths agape.
The Strokes-possibly the modern era's first indie rock band, prefigured the "brooklyn" and "ny" gold rush that occured later on in the decade. Made converse cool again
Beck-had his 2nd wind, released the landmark Sea Change, his finest hour
The xx-two classic albums, influenced Radiohead, James Blake, dubstep
Sigur Ros-landmark () album. Took rock music to gorgeous new heights
Outkast-Entire catalogue is essentially a most important hip hop albums list. Crafted possibly the greatest pop song of the decade, other than Since U Been Gone, with Hey Ya
Death Cab-Postal Service-Ben Gibbard-one of our best lyricists, one of the reasons indie went mainstream.
Arcade Fire-3 classic albums and a live show that blows every other bands live show out of the water.
Lots of songwriters-Tallest Man on earth, Conor Oberst, Sam Beam,
Damien Rice-the epitome of excellence in singer songwriter genre in the 2000's.
NME's endless list of new bands-Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Pete Doherty,
Kanye West-anyone who doubts his legacy is off their rocker. 6 classic albums. Produced The Blueprint. Every one of his albums is a stone cold classic. Icon. Legend.
Broken Social Scene-prefigured AF's success, You Forgot it In People remains a legendary album. 12 member group where every single person is essential.
Modest Mouse
The Shins
I'm not knocking anyone on your list, but a lot of them are more cult-following kind of acts than genuinely massive acts. Obviously some of them are big, but even a band like Arcade Fire are kind of on the outskirts despite their critical hype.
I'm thinking that perhaps I'm not articulating my point as well as I would like to since you keep repeating the same argument (which I do understand). I'm talking about mainstream music. In every era prior to this one there were a number of rock bands who broke into the mainstream, had mass appeal AND put out classic, enduring records. This just doesn't seem to have happened in the last decade or so, or not to the same degree. I just read this list of the biggest selling rock hits in the UK of the 21st century, brace yourself.....
1 Sex On Fire - Kings Of Leon (2008) 1,100,000
2 Use Somebody - Kings Of Leon (2008) 825,000
3 Killing In The Name - Rage Against The Machine (2009) 705,000
4 Teenage Dirtbag - Wheatus (2001) 695,000
5 Rockstar - Nickelback (2005) 635,000
6 How You Remind Me - Nickelback (2002) 560,000
7 Changes - Kelly and Ozzy Osbourne (2003) 490,000
8 Bad Touch - Bloodhouse Gang (2000) 460,000
9 Bring Me To Life - Evanescence (2003) 455,000
10 All Summer Long - Kid Rock (2008) 415,000
11 Christmas Time (Don’t Let The Bells End) - The Darkness (2003) 405,000
12 It’s My Life - Bon Jovi (2000) 365,000
13 Rollin’ - Limp Bizkit (2001) 355,000
14 Smooth Criminal - Alien Ant Farm (2001) 345,000
15 Follow Me - Uncle Kracker (2001) 335,000
16 All The Small Things - Blink 182 (2000) 330,000
17 Welcome To The Black Parade - My Chemical Romance (2006) 325,000
18 Fire - Kasabian (2009) 320,000
19 Dakota - Stereophonics (2005) 315,000
20 Butterfly - Crazytown (2001) 310,000
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,070
Some of the bands listed in several of the posts above deserve merit and have done great work but if you ask the average person on the street what they think of them or know about them most people will say, "Who is that?" But if you ask the same people who the Beatles or Stones or Pearl Jam are they will at least say, "Oh yeah, I've heard of them".
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
So is that the barometer we are using then? That list is pretty funny since those are mostly from my 6th-9th grade years... The glory days haha. Without doing any research I would imagine the poppy bands back in the '70 and '80s outsold the great rock bands? Maybe someone would have more info on that as I'm curious to see how that era went with sales.
But I think today and going forward you are more likely to see, ball parking here, twice the amount of great bands with sixty to seventy percent of the following as compared to back in the day. There are only X amount of people and those dollars/time/ and interest are more and more spread out.
And that reminds me... Teenage Dirtbag was one of the first 2 or 3 songs I ever downloaded on Napster. That and SR-71 - Right Now. How about that for a throwback :geek:
So is that the barometer we are using then? That list is pretty funny since those are mostly from my 6th-9th grade years... The glory days haha. Without doing any research I would imagine the poppy bands back in the '70 and '80s outsold the great rock bands? Maybe someone would have more info on that as I'm curious to see how that era went with sales.
There just seems to be a lack of rock bands appealing to the mainstream and I really can't get my head around it.
In terms of sales in other decades a quick search turned up:
70's: Elton John, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Abba, Led Zeppelin
80's: Prince, Madonna, U2, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen
So lets get down to it. I think their hasnt been many classic "rock" bands the last decade because there are so many genres and subgenres right now, and classic stuff being made doesnt necessarily easily fit into one category. I think what the 2000's showed is ALOT of interesting stuff is happening, and not all of it is in rock.
Who will we be talking about in 20 years?
Bon Iver-2 classic albums, a musical genius.
Sufjan Stevens-a songwriter thats embarassingly talented, relentlessly creative and not afraid to take risks. He can craft lyrics that will break your heart.
Radiohead-KId A, Amnesiac, HTTT, In Rainbows, TKOL. Every other band in the 2000's is left embarrassed and mouths agape.
The Strokes-possibly the modern era's first indie rock band, prefigured the "brooklyn" and "ny" gold rush that occured later on in the decade. Made converse cool again
Beck-had his 2nd wind, released the landmark Sea Change, his finest hour
The xx-two classic albums, influenced Radiohead, James Blake, dubstep
Sigur Ros-landmark () album. Took rock music to gorgeous new heights
Outkast-Entire catalogue is essentially a most important hip hop albums list. Crafted possibly the greatest pop song of the decade, other than Since U Been Gone, with Hey Ya
Death Cab-Postal Service-Ben Gibbard-one of our best lyricists, one of the reasons indie went mainstream.
Arcade Fire-3 classic albums and a live show that blows every other bands live show out of the water.
Lots of songwriters-Tallest Man on earth, Conor Oberst, Sam Beam,
Damien Rice-the epitome of excellence in singer songwriter genre in the 2000's.
NME's endless list of new bands-Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Pete Doherty,
Kanye West-anyone who doubts his legacy is off their rocker. 6 classic albums. Produced The Blueprint. Every one of his albums is a stone cold classic. Icon. Legend.
Broken Social Scene-prefigured AF's success, You Forgot it In People remains a legendary album. 12 member group where every single person is essential.
Modest Mouse
The Shins
I think everybody's aware that rock music has subgenres. The majority of those acts are unknown to casual music fans and that plays a huge part in advancing the music to the next generations.
Radiohead, as great as some of their work from this century has been, made their legend with Ok Computer.
I think we seen the kinda clout that Kanye carries when he was invited to the 121212 show. He may have been a bust, but the simple fact that he was invited speaks volumes.
Bon Iver/ Arcade Fire- A few Grammy's don't make a legend that carries for generations. They each got about a week's worth of notoriety for the armful of trophy's and have had very little buzz since. Arcade Fire never matched the initial buzz of Bowie given them a big thumb's up, including their Grammy wins.
Tell a person on the street that Beck has put out an album since Loser or Where It's At and you'll shock the pants right off of them.
The Strokes are another band that's yet to match their initial buzz.
As for the rest of them(excluding Outkast), a minor hit here or there or influencing another artist that very few people have heard of.....I just don't see how that makes an artist we'll be talking about in 50 years.
Obviously, a PJ message board is gonna be most concerned with the state of rock music, but even other genres are pretty lacking.
So lets get down to it. I think their hasnt been many classic "rock" bands the last decade because there are so many genres and subgenres right now, and classic stuff being made doesnt necessarily easily fit into one category. I think what the 2000's showed is ALOT of interesting stuff is happening, and not all of it is in rock.
Who will we be talking about in 20 years?
Bon Iver-2 classic albums, a musical genius.
Sufjan Stevens-a songwriter thats embarassingly talented, relentlessly creative and not afraid to take risks. He can craft lyrics that will break your heart.
Radiohead-KId A, Amnesiac, HTTT, In Rainbows, TKOL. Every other band in the 2000's is left embarrassed and mouths agape.
The Strokes-possibly the modern era's first indie rock band, prefigured the "brooklyn" and "ny" gold rush that occured later on in the decade. Made converse cool again
Beck-had his 2nd wind, released the landmark Sea Change, his finest hour
The xx-two classic albums, influenced Radiohead, James Blake, dubstep
Sigur Ros-landmark () album. Took rock music to gorgeous new heights
Outkast-Entire catalogue is essentially a most important hip hop albums list. Crafted possibly the greatest pop song of the decade, other than Since U Been Gone, with Hey Ya
Death Cab-Postal Service-Ben Gibbard-one of our best lyricists, one of the reasons indie went mainstream.
Arcade Fire-3 classic albums and a live show that blows every other bands live show out of the water.
Lots of songwriters-Tallest Man on earth, Conor Oberst, Sam Beam,
Damien Rice-the epitome of excellence in singer songwriter genre in the 2000's.
NME's endless list of new bands-Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Pete Doherty,
Kanye West-anyone who doubts his legacy is off their rocker. 6 classic albums. Produced The Blueprint. Every one of his albums is a stone cold classic. Icon. Legend.
Broken Social Scene-prefigured AF's success, You Forgot it In People remains a legendary album. 12 member group where every single person is essential.
Modest Mouse
The Shins
I'm not knocking anyone on your list, but a lot of them are more cult-following kind of acts than genuinely massive acts. Obviously some of them are big, but even a band like Arcade Fire are kind of on the outskirts despite their critical hype.
I'm thinking that perhaps I'm not articulating my point as well as I would like to since you keep repeating the same argument (which I do understand). I'm talking about mainstream music. In every era prior to this one there were a number of rock bands who broke into the mainstream, had mass appeal AND put out classic, enduring records. This just doesn't seem to have happened in the last decade or so, or not to the same degree. I just read this list of the biggest selling rock hits in the UK of the 21st century, brace yourself.....
1 Sex On Fire - Kings Of Leon (2008) 1,100,000
2 Use Somebody - Kings Of Leon (2008) 825,000
3 Killing In The Name - Rage Against The Machine (2009) 705,000
4 Teenage Dirtbag - Wheatus (2001) 695,000
5 Rockstar - Nickelback (2005) 635,000
6 How You Remind Me - Nickelback (2002) 560,000
7 Changes - Kelly and Ozzy Osbourne (2003) 490,000
8 Bad Touch - Bloodhouse Gang (2000) 460,000
9 Bring Me To Life - Evanescence (2003) 455,000
10 All Summer Long - Kid Rock (2008) 415,000
11 Christmas Time (Don’t Let The Bells End) - The Darkness (2003) 405,000
12 It’s My Life - Bon Jovi (2000) 365,000
13 Rollin’ - Limp Bizkit (2001) 355,000
14 Smooth Criminal - Alien Ant Farm (2001) 345,000
15 Follow Me - Uncle Kracker (2001) 335,000
16 All The Small Things - Blink 182 (2000) 330,000
17 Welcome To The Black Parade - My Chemical Romance (2006) 325,000
18 Fire - Kasabian (2009) 320,000
19 Dakota - Stereophonics (2005) 315,000
20 Butterfly - Crazytown (2001) 310,000
I think part of the problem is the parameters have changed. IN the 90's, its clear what was massive and mainstream. You sold a ton of records, were on MTV, were on the radio. In 2013, its hard to define what mainstream even means. MTV and Vh1 dont play videos. The radio no longer seems the place where people discover new bands and magazines and outlets like RS and Spin are being overtaken by blogs and online media. Record sales no longer indicate popularity since most people our age download. In 2013, an unknown and unsigned band can get their song used on some of the most watched tv shows airing, like Greys Anatomy, which will cause millions of people to check out your song on YouTube, but is that really "huge"? Where you are it would be Skins. or misfits. Thats what "big" and massive bands do these days. Thats what breakout and mainstream success looks like in 2013. Getting a song played on Skins is the equivilant of a number 1 album or getting played on MTV. Yet, the impact of all this seems less than in decades past.
Take a perfect example of a band in the 2000's blowing up and becoming huge as part of this new paradigm. Snow Patrol had been a semi successful indie band prior to 2005, then Grey's used Chasing Cars in an episode. The song became huge, the band started playing arenas, and the band blew up. But how big are Snow Patrol? How big really did that exposure make them? Huge in 2000's and huge in the 70's are WILDLY different things.
Same could be said for Float On era Modest Mouse, or Death Cab after being on The OC, The Fray after being on Scrubs and Greys.
What im saying is, no band in 2013 and the modern era can be that big or massive again. So, thats why the "biggest" and most important artists, all of which i listed, are all "big" but "semi big".
Bands like The Decemberists, Death Cab, Modest Mouse and The Shins, Id argue are the biggest names in indie rock, have had major sucesss, sold millions of records, but none are THAT big.
Essentially your main question can't be answered in 2013, because no one knows how to define it. I think you are confusing record sales with importance. Was Nirvana classic because they sold millions of records? Is London Calling classic because it sold alot? Especially in 2013, I think its hard to make that argument, because with all the downloading the numbers at the top of those "best selling albums of the 21st century" are just guesses. You can't measure "massive bands" like that anymore. The world as a whole is buying less music, yet clearly people are listening to as much music, or even more, than they were in previous decades.
All this means, its hard for any one band to become the next Led Zep or Beatles and sell a billion records. No one buys records anymore for one. And two most people listen to a ridiculous amount of varying music. Few people devote years to one band and one band only fan worship. And the speed at which new music comes out also precludes massive bands.
If I were to name the biggest bands in the world in 2013 Id say Mumford and Sons would be the band. They've sold some records, they can play arenas. But how big are they really? Is the success of a band like that in 2013 equivilant to the success U2 had post Joshua Tree or what Led Zep had in the 70's? Clearly its not. I dont imagine Marcus Mumford with a butler and a Rolls and a huge house. The economy just doesnt allow that, not even for huge bands like that. Breaking into the mainstream is hard to define. Are Mumford and KOL as HUGE as Led Zep or U2 were? Obviously they arent, and alot of that is the modern world.
I think thats why my list is made of "outskirts" bands. Thats all that exists in 2013.
My list is made up of the most important bands of the 2000's. And Id be willing to bet the mortgage that most of them will have lasting careers and will be remembered.
Plus record sales and acclaim and massiveness NOW doesnt necessarily even translate into classic or being remembered. Take Nick Drake. Unknown and died forgotten. Wasnt until the late 90;s when a car commercial used his music, and the 2000's were filled with singer songwriters who were majorly influenced by him.
I think you seem to want to have things in a manner that they no longer exist. Record sales are useless measurements in 2013. Even less useful in determining lasting impact or classic band status.
Nevermind would have been a classic whether it sold 500,000 or 10 million. IN 2013 its not possible for a band to sell like that, to become mainstream, at least in the way you define it, and to become classic and legendary. It just doesnt happen.
So is that the barometer we are using then? That list is pretty funny since those are mostly from my 6th-9th grade years... The glory days haha. Without doing any research I would imagine the poppy bands back in the '70 and '80s outsold the great rock bands? Maybe someone would have more info on that as I'm curious to see how that era went with sales.
There just seems to be a lack of rock bands appealing to the mainstream and I really can't get my head around it.
In terms of sales in other decades a quick search turned up:
70's: Elton John, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Abba, Led Zeppelin
80's: Prince, Madonna, U2, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen
But how does a band appeal to the mainstream? How do you blow up in 2013? Record sales arent going to tell you that. Nor is radio spins. Awards seem to tell you even less.
The meaninglessness of record sales can be acertained by talking to any band in 2013, who will tell you they make most of their money touring and selling merch.
Thats true for all. Justin Timberlakes album and Kanye's new one which will end up being the 2 biggest selling albums of the year, probably wont sell more than a few million each. The days of selling a million units a week like in the early 2000's is long gone.
Frank Ocean and The Weeknd are massive and huge, both have become "mainstream", but their success isnt measured in record sales. Nor are they really that huge.
So lets get down to it. I think their hasnt been many classic "rock" bands the last decade because there are so many genres and subgenres right now, and classic stuff being made doesnt necessarily easily fit into one category. I think what the 2000's showed is ALOT of interesting stuff is happening, and not all of it is in rock.
Who will we be talking about in 20 years?
Bon Iver-2 classic albums, a musical genius.
Sufjan Stevens-a songwriter thats embarassingly talented, relentlessly creative and not afraid to take risks. He can craft lyrics that will break your heart.
Radiohead-KId A, Amnesiac, HTTT, In Rainbows, TKOL. Every other band in the 2000's is left embarrassed and mouths agape.
The Strokes-possibly the modern era's first indie rock band, prefigured the "brooklyn" and "ny" gold rush that occured later on in the decade. Made converse cool again
Beck-had his 2nd wind, released the landmark Sea Change, his finest hour
The xx-two classic albums, influenced Radiohead, James Blake, dubstep
Sigur Ros-landmark () album. Took rock music to gorgeous new heights
Outkast-Entire catalogue is essentially a most important hip hop albums list. Crafted possibly the greatest pop song of the decade, other than Since U Been Gone, with Hey Ya
Death Cab-Postal Service-Ben Gibbard-one of our best lyricists, one of the reasons indie went mainstream.
Arcade Fire-3 classic albums and a live show that blows every other bands live show out of the water.
Lots of songwriters-Tallest Man on earth, Conor Oberst, Sam Beam,
Damien Rice-the epitome of excellence in singer songwriter genre in the 2000's.
NME's endless list of new bands-Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Pete Doherty,
Kanye West-anyone who doubts his legacy is off their rocker. 6 classic albums. Produced The Blueprint. Every one of his albums is a stone cold classic. Icon. Legend.
Broken Social Scene-prefigured AF's success, You Forgot it In People remains a legendary album. 12 member group where every single person is essential.
Modest Mouse
The Shins
I think everybody's aware that rock music has subgenres. The majority of those acts are unknown to casual music fans and that plays a huge part in advancing the music to the next generations.
Radiohead, as great as some of their work from this century has been, made their legend with Ok Computer.
I think we seen the kinda clout that Kanye carries when he was invited to the 121212 show. He may have been a bust, but the simple fact that he was invited speaks volumes.
Bon Iver/ Arcade Fire- A few Grammy's don't make a legend that carries for generations. They each got about a week's worth of notoriety for the armful of trophy's and have had very little buzz since. Arcade Fire never matched the initial buzz of Bowie given them a big thumb's up, including their Grammy wins.
Tell a person on the street that Beck has put out an album since Loser or Where It's At and you'll shock the pants right off of them.
The Strokes are another band that's yet to match their initial buzz.
As for the rest of them(excluding Outkast), a minor hit here or there or influencing another artist that very few people have heard of.....I just don't see how that makes an artist we'll be talking about in 50 years.
Obviously, a PJ message board is gonna be most concerned with the state of rock music, but even other genres are pretty lacking.
Subgenres influence the lack of "huge" mainstream bands. If 20 bands are releasing albums every week for the entire year, and we have access to all of them, and outlets like blogs deem a new album each week as essential, how much time does any one band get? Its listen to an album for a few days, recycle the songs you dislike, and on to the next one. Thats modern music culture. To deny this is to deny reality.
People seem unwilling to understand the concept changed. The OP is viewing the question in an outdated manner. The talk of record sales and all that is useless nowadays.
U2 Joshua Tree era and KOL and Mumford in the 2000's. Theres a huge difference. Its based in the economic crisis, declining record sales across the board, the industry collapsing, the sheer amount of music released each year, the decentralization of the way consumers find and obtain new music, the disposible nature of how the music is consumed, the "everyman" nature of most huge bands these days. Look at Portland. A breeding ground for some of the most important and successful indie bands of the 2000's. A new Seattle. Yet the rock god worship of Seattle is nonexistant. People don't mob and harass Isaac Brock or Britt Daniel or Ben Gibbard. Most of those guys aren't living in 20 room mansions. In fact from what I can ascertain Isaac Brock lives in a middle class neighborhood and his house is average sized. People treat these people like normal citizens. The days of Robert Plant tour bus antics and excess seem to be largely a thing of the past, even for the biggest bands in the world.
Some of the bands listed in several of the posts above deserve merit and have done great work but if you ask the average person on the street what they think of them or know about them most people will say, "Who is that?" But if you ask the same people who the Beatles or Stones or Pearl Jam are they will at least say, "Oh yeah, I've heard of them".
Thats the whole point. The fault in most peoples arguments here, seems to be legendary and classic WITHOUT exception means selling millions, being incredibly famous and "being mainstream". Despite the obvious problem of defining those terms, the reality is a band can be classic and remembered and not sell a ton.
The new paradigm is legendary and classic without being a household name. Because from my standpoint the list of "best albums of 2000's" list is perfect, filled with amazing albums and bands, many of which will stand the test of time and will be remembered for decades to come.
A band will never, even if the world kept turning for eons, sell 300 million like Led Zep did. Let alone 40 million.
The measuring stick needs to be recalibrated.
The idea that Bon Iver or Arcade Fire or anyone else WONT be remembered, based solely on the fact they didnt sell 10 million, or arent known by grandmas and uncles is a silly argument that doesnt hold weight.
This idea of legendary and classic in the 2000s needs to be recalibrated by some of you here.
Thats the whole point. The fault in most peoples arguments here, seems to be legendary and classic WITHOUT exception means selling millions, being incredibly famous and "being mainstream". Despite the obvious problem of defining those terms, the reality is a band can be classic and remembered and not sell a ton.
Album sales is only one criterion.
There are plenty of classic albums that didn't sell millions of copies:
Nick Drake - Pink Moon
Television - Marquee Moon
etc
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
To say my view is outdated isn't necessarily correct, some bands are selling decent amounts of records (in a time when records don't really sell). I'd be interested to see how those sales compare to say the 90's rock bands if the sales were adjusted to take into account the obvious drop off in sales post 2000. My feeling is that there were plenty of sub-genre bands in the 80's, 90's etc that would have been comparable to the ones you listed in terms of critical acclaim and influence - but there were also more mainstream bands releasing great records. For every Pixies or Afghan Whigs there were a Nirvana or Pearl Jam selling millions more records.
To say my view is outdated isn't necessarily correct, some bands are selling decent amounts of records (in a time when records don't really sell). I'd be interested to see how those sales compare to say the 90's rock bands if the sales were adjusted to take into account the obvious drop off in sales post 2000. My feeling is that there were plenty of sub-genre bands in the 80's, 90's etc that would have been comparable to the ones you listed in terms of critical acclaim and influence - but there were also more mainstream bands releasing great records. For every Pixies or Afghan Whigs there were a Nirvana or Pearl Jam selling millions more records.
Why are there no bands to break into the mainstream in rock and become legends in the last 10 years? No one has money to buy albums, thus even the big bands never see the returns of their success, the economy collapsing at large means even bands arent going to be living high and mighty and by and large tales of wild hotel room excess doesnt exist anymore, and theres less of a "all for one" mentality these days.
bands like Nirvana and Led Zep and u2, got big, not only because of their undeniable talent, but also because you had only a limited amount of bands who could get famous. If you didnt hear a band on the radio, or later on during MTV see them on MTV, you flat out didnt hear them. Everyone was watching MTV and everyone saw Teen Spirit 10 times every day during that time period. No surprise what happened.
In 2013, there are as many ways to obtain music as their are bands. Festivals feature hundreds of bands. The old question of "what kind of music do you like" is meaningless to most people. " Well I listen to Usher, but Ive been into the new Bruce album, last week I was blasting the Joanna Newsom album, and before that Skrillex". Isnt it self evident why that sort of behavior would result in no single band rising above the crop?
The bands who became huge formed lasting emotional and personal bonds with fans. And thats certainly possible in 2013, but music is more disposible, more "im listening to this while I excersize on the elliptical, or on my commute to work". Most people dont even listen to albums. They listen to songs, thanks to iTunes and iPods. You listen to the new Kanye, delete the songs you hate, and are left with 5 songs, and thats your listening experience.
Few people seem to have one single band they love. Thats why the festival example is pertinant. I dont get the sense Coachella and Bonnaroo audiences like a single genre or style. They eat up Sir Paul, and a dubstep artist at the same festival and can come away from it saying both rocked.
Teens arent focusing on a single band. They like hundreds. Thousands even. They listen to a few songs from each maybe, but their attention is spread way more than in the old days. Why spend 4 months listening to a single band or a single album over and over? Few people do that.
The imploding music industry is self evident. You seem to view this barrier that bands in the 2000's have been unable to go past. That barrier is at once non existant and I think a figment of your imagination of what music is these days, but its also nebulous and doesnt have meaning.
Most bands arent selling records. A view of Billboard or Soundscan or talking to any record label exec reveals this. And its obvious. Record sales have been declining since the days of Napster. Are there some bands that sell units? Sure but most bands, the majority arent.
I think you need to forget the album sales argument. It doesnt tell us anything. And it seems like you are being led astray by the importance of it.
I think what the 2000's have been is, a ton of bands, who sold reasonbly well, not massive amounts, which nonetheless influenced culture, the public and other bands.
Thats the whole point. The fault in most peoples arguments here, seems to be legendary and classic WITHOUT exception means selling millions, being incredibly famous and "being mainstream". Despite the obvious problem of defining those terms, the reality is a band can be classic and remembered and not sell a ton.
Album sales is only one criterion.
There are plenty of classic albums that didn't sell millions of copies:
Nick Drake - Pink Moon
Television - Marquee Moon
etc
Precisely, the classic and ultimate example would be Velvet Underground or The Ramones. Besides, most quality art across the board is ignored or bashed, or criticized. Art is meant to be abrasive and challenge the audience.
So why do KOL, NIckelback etc sell so well where others don't? They are rock bands, in the same environment you describe, yet their sales are head and shoulders above most of the bands you keep listing.
So why do KOL, NIckelback etc sell so well where others don't? They are rock bands, in the same environment you describe, yet their sales are head and shoulders above most of the bands you keep listing.
KOL's success I dont know how to explain. I still remember them as some small unknown indie band opening for PJ. No one knew who they were. Then Sex On Fire hit and they became massive.
Nickelbacks success has to do with major labels, their success happened just on the cusp on the Napster stuff, their first hit was in like 1998 or something, and Silver Side up was in 2001. They get played on the radio, and did for the entire 2000's. They are on a major label. When Vh1 and MTV do show videos, or did in the 2000's, Nickelback was sure to be played. You are way likelier even now, when you turn on the radio, to hear Nickelback, as opposed to say Bon Iver, even though I think ones way more relevant and more of the moment than the other. Plus being on a major label has major advantages in terms of marketing options. I wouldnt be shocked if someone like Pepsi or whoever sponsored the Nickelback tours.
Nickelback sells records. but KOL's sales even during the Sex on Fire heydey didnt reflect the type of sales you'd expect a big band like that to sell. You are in the UK right? In america at least, KOL hasnt sold that many records. For a band that could be considered the biggest in the world, their sales are shockingly low. in 5 years only by the night has only sold 2 million in the us. Thats nothing. In early 2000, bands would sell a million in ONE WEEK. 6.2 million worldwide in 5 years isnt much either. Thats the dichotomy. An undeniably huge band with record sales of 6 million in 5 years, on the heels of two of the biggest rock songs Sex on Fire and Use Somebody of the 2000's.
The power of sales and the power of a hit song doesnt mean much anymore. Unless you are Adele.
I dont really think KOL or Nickelback sell all that well. Nickelback's record sales pale in comparison to the early success. The new album has sold 500,000 copies in 2 years in the US.
Precisely, the classic and ultimate example would be Velvet Underground or The Ramones. Besides, most quality art across the board is ignored or bashed, or criticized. Art is meant to be abrasive and challenge the audience.
While those artists may not have sold well at first, they were immediately hugely influential to music, fashion, society and other art forms. The Ramones made huge bands like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd dinosaurs and Velvet Underground brought a realness to music that wasn't really there before.
Precisely, the classic and ultimate example would be Velvet Underground or The Ramones. Besides, most quality art across the board is ignored or bashed, or criticized. Art is meant to be abrasive and challenge the audience.
While those artists may not have sold well at first, they were immediately hugely influential to music, fashion, society and other art forms. The Ramones made huge bands like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd dinosaurs and Velvet Underground brought a realness to music that wasn't really there before.
I think thats ultimately the point im trying to point out with influential and important bands of the 2000's. Its clear to anyone who lives in a major city the influence of hipster culture and indie music. Most of the bands who helped popularize that style of music and fashion and talk and the whole lifestyle, are big, but are big within that culture.
And i think those bands I listed in my list, have been massively influential, they just arent selling a million copes of each album. But they influence in a variety of ways. Maybe its fashion. Maybe its lyrics. Maybe its actual sound.
Hell Portlandia has got to be one of the more influential shows around, but I would guarantee it isnt seen by more than 2 million, if that.
Whether than translates to classic or legendary, its too early to tell. But reguardless, i think its clear to anyone who's been to Billysburg or Portland or Brooklyn that music that sells relatively small amounts of units can influence an entire culture and way of life.
Whether than translates to classic or legendary, its too early to tell. But reguardless, i think its clear to anyone who's been to Billysburg or Portland or Brooklyn that music that sells relatively small amounts of units can influence an entire culture and way of life.
And that has almost nothing to do with whether or not an album or artist is classic.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I also think these bands are as important to us as bands were to our parents. Bon Iver's music clearly has deep emotional and personal relevance to fans. Not sure how anyone could argue For Emma is anything other than a classic album. The backstory alone is classic. Does Justin play rock? Its alot harder to qualify sounds nowadays.
Same with Illinois. Masterpiece album. One of the most important albums of the entire decade. But id be shocked if it sold more than a million. Yet that album had massive impact. But Sufjan isnt known much beyond the immediate culture or subculture. And what type of music does he play? You go insane trying to pin it down.
The mistake I think is having any sort of parameters. I know few pure rock, or pure hip hop or pure blues bands. Nowadays bands mix styles from album to album and even song to song.
I also think these bands are as important to us as bands were to our parents. Bon Iver's music clearly has deep emotional and personal relevance to fans. Not sure how anyone could argue For Emma is anything other than a classic album. The backstory alone is classic. Does Justin play rock? Its alot harder to qualify sounds nowadays.
Same with Illinois. Masterpiece album. One of the most important albums of the entire decade. But id be shocked if it sold more than a million. Yet that album had massive impact. But Sufjan isnt known much beyond the immediate culture or subculture. And what type of music does he play? You go insane trying to pin it down.
The mistake I think is having any sort of parameters. I know few pure rock, or pure hip hop or pure blues bands. Nowadays bands mix styles from album to album and even song to song.
I just think you are talking about something different to the subject at hand. My point is that there are precious few mainstream rock bands from 2000 that can compete with previous eras. That in no way devalues any of the artists you are talking about, and perhaps these sub-cultures have a bigger influence and following now than they did back then. But, there has to be a reason why they haven't crossed over to the mainstream when other rock bands have.
I also think these bands are as important to us as bands were to our parents. Bon Iver's music clearly has deep emotional and personal relevance to fans. Not sure how anyone could argue For Emma is anything other than a classic album. The backstory alone is classic. Does Justin play rock? Its alot harder to qualify sounds nowadays.
Same with Illinois. Masterpiece album. One of the most important albums of the entire decade. But id be shocked if it sold more than a million. Yet that album had massive impact. But Sufjan isnt known much beyond the immediate culture or subculture. And what type of music does he play? You go insane trying to pin it down.
The mistake I think is having any sort of parameters. I know few pure rock, or pure hip hop or pure blues bands. Nowadays bands mix styles from album to album and even song to song.
I just think you are talking about something different to the subject at hand. My point is that there are precious few mainstream rock bands from 2000 that can compete with previous eras.
That in no way devalues any of the artists you are talking about, and perhaps these sub-cultures have a bigger influence and following now than they did back then. But, there has to be a reason why they haven't crossed over to the mainstream when other rock bands have.
The whole point is theres no apparatus to cross over. Its a new age. So far you've mentioned you consider album sales as a marker of a band breaking mainstream. What you fail to seem to grasp is the meaninglessness of record sales nowadays. Its absolutely useless. In discussing whether a band has "made it" "broken through" "gone mainstream" or "hit it big", in 2013, I think there are 15 different other ways, more coherent and more valuable to us, to decipher whether a band has done any of those things. You can't really tell whats mainstream or not. Mumford is the perfect example. Even with their success, I dont consider them mainstream. Death Cab and Modest Mouse are no doubt the 2 biggest examples of indie this decade, are either of them truely mainstream? If they are, neither has record sales to show for it. They;ve broken through, but the impact of their music pales in comparison to big bands of previous generations.
The question needs to be altered to compensate for varied definitions in what indie even means, varied definitions on what is success in a post napster climate, definitions of whats success in a climate where the music industry is crumbling, and one where music is increasingly decentrailized and without a true center of gravity.
Bon Iver and Arcade Fire can't be on the cover of magazines and Newsweek and all that because few people subscribe to magazines, and the impact of RS and Spin and even one closer to home for you, NME is way lessened. Back in early 2000 NME could break a band. They have clout but not sure they have that much anymore.
Bands cant be on the radio. Most people recognize radio as a payola scam, and radio's power has lessened this decade.
Bands can't be on MTV and VH1 anymore. I dont know what the UK equivilant is.
All the ways you measure success are no longer existant. And the things that do happen, like a few years back Odd Future breaking out during an appearance on Fallon, all of that is online. How do you really measure how many people checked out Iron and Wine on Kimmel? Your left with neilsen ratings points, and hits on a site. Who knows how many of those hits or views actually translate into something beyond "watching it once and deleting it forever", or "watching it and hating it", or "watching the show but tuning out and disliking the music act".
So were left with content and hype online, buzz on blogs, end of year acclaim and best of lists, exposure of the bands via placement in tv shows and movies, and the impact the music has on a specific niche culture. You cant really measure it beyond that.
I dont know how a band in 2013 hits it big beyond what ive explored here. Id argue hipster's and indie music are mainstream, so any music associated with it is mainstream. I think our parents and grandparents do know what a hipster is. Clearly, the culture of the music, which has gone mainstream, is well known. Fixies and beard and PBR and all that I think people know that stuff.
You cant understand your original question or expect to get coherent answers, unless you accept that 2013 is completely unrecognizable from 1990, or even 2001. And that a mainstream band in 2013 means wildy different things than it used to. A biggest band in the world, in 2013 means wildly different things.
It feels like you are a 2000 version of facepollution. I think to truly deconstruct this question we need to deal in todays terms and values relevant to 2013. A bands success in 2013 has absolutely nothing to do with record sales, radio play, or possibly even how "mainstream" they are. Bon Iver and The National are the two examples that come to mind. Trouble Will Find Me, will be high on nearly every best of 2013 list, has been universally well recieved by fans and critics, and it seems to be viewed as one of their best. Yet, it most likely wont sell more than 500,000 copies.
So you think it completely incomprehensible that there could be a correlation between mainstream success and accessibility? Had Radiohead dropped Kid A after The Bends do you think they would be in the position they are in now? Would Pearl Jam be as popular now if they had released No Code first and Ten came along as album number four? By your rationale only indie hipsters are going to be able to name a memorable rock album from the 2000's in twenty years time.
Sure, the ways in which people experience and learn of new music are different now to how they were ten or fifteen years ago, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING has changed. Pop music still dominates the charts - is Beyonce's success really down to anything different than Mariah Carey's success in the 90's? Catchy tunes, strong vocals - people still like those things.
While I remember, do you think there are any cult bands in 2013, and if so how would you define them? What differentiates them from the bands you've listed? Also how do you explain the success of bands like Kings Of Leon, Coldplay, QOTSA etc? Just plain fluke?
Comments
I guess it depends on how you divide eras. It seems like there has been other time frames that have come and gone without producing obviously legendary artists, but a few have probably always pushed through. I think at the very least the 2000s have produced the fewest classic artists than at any other time. I think it's telling that we're talking about a 13 or 14 year period and we only have a handful, at most, of artist that are really entering the discussion.
Who will we be talking about in 20 years?
Bon Iver-2 classic albums, a musical genius.
Sufjan Stevens-a songwriter thats embarassingly talented, relentlessly creative and not afraid to take risks. He can craft lyrics that will break your heart.
Radiohead-KId A, Amnesiac, HTTT, In Rainbows, TKOL. Every other band in the 2000's is left embarrassed and mouths agape.
The Strokes-possibly the modern era's first indie rock band, prefigured the "brooklyn" and "ny" gold rush that occured later on in the decade. Made converse cool again
Beck-had his 2nd wind, released the landmark Sea Change, his finest hour
The xx-two classic albums, influenced Radiohead, James Blake, dubstep
Sigur Ros-landmark () album. Took rock music to gorgeous new heights
Outkast-Entire catalogue is essentially a most important hip hop albums list. Crafted possibly the greatest pop song of the decade, other than Since U Been Gone, with Hey Ya
Death Cab-Postal Service-Ben Gibbard-one of our best lyricists, one of the reasons indie went mainstream.
Arcade Fire-3 classic albums and a live show that blows every other bands live show out of the water.
Lots of songwriters-Tallest Man on earth, Conor Oberst, Sam Beam,
Damien Rice-the epitome of excellence in singer songwriter genre in the 2000's.
NME's endless list of new bands-Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, Pete Doherty,
Kanye West-anyone who doubts his legacy is off their rocker. 6 classic albums. Produced The Blueprint. Every one of his albums is a stone cold classic. Icon. Legend.
Broken Social Scene-prefigured AF's success, You Forgot it In People remains a legendary album. 12 member group where every single person is essential.
Modest Mouse
The Shins
I couldnt disagree more. Just Google Best albums of the 2000's. Check out some of the lists.
I could see Frank Ocean and the Weeknd having long careers.
Yet another example of important and interesting music being made, but not rock.
My Morning Jacket
Fleet Foxes
Mumford and Sons
The Gaslight Anthem
The Lumineers
Queens of the Stone age
City and Color
Frank Ocean needs some serious serious help with his live act. If he can do that then he will be fine.
'10- MSG 1-2 '11- PJ20
'12- MIA; DeLuna '13- Wrigley; Pitt; Brooklyn 1-2; Philly 1-2; Baltimore; Seattle
'14- Denver '16- Philly 1-2; MSG 2
'17- Pilgrimage Music Fest (Eddie)
'18- Fenway
I'm not knocking anyone on your list, but a lot of them are more cult-following kind of acts than genuinely massive acts. Obviously some of them are big, but even a band like Arcade Fire are kind of on the outskirts despite their critical hype.
I'm thinking that perhaps I'm not articulating my point as well as I would like to since you keep repeating the same argument (which I do understand). I'm talking about mainstream music. In every era prior to this one there were a number of rock bands who broke into the mainstream, had mass appeal AND put out classic, enduring records. This just doesn't seem to have happened in the last decade or so, or not to the same degree. I just read this list of the biggest selling rock hits in the UK of the 21st century, brace yourself.....
1 Sex On Fire - Kings Of Leon (2008) 1,100,000
2 Use Somebody - Kings Of Leon (2008) 825,000
3 Killing In The Name - Rage Against The Machine (2009) 705,000
4 Teenage Dirtbag - Wheatus (2001) 695,000
5 Rockstar - Nickelback (2005) 635,000
6 How You Remind Me - Nickelback (2002) 560,000
7 Changes - Kelly and Ozzy Osbourne (2003) 490,000
8 Bad Touch - Bloodhouse Gang (2000) 460,000
9 Bring Me To Life - Evanescence (2003) 455,000
10 All Summer Long - Kid Rock (2008) 415,000
11 Christmas Time (Don’t Let The Bells End) - The Darkness (2003) 405,000
12 It’s My Life - Bon Jovi (2000) 365,000
13 Rollin’ - Limp Bizkit (2001) 355,000
14 Smooth Criminal - Alien Ant Farm (2001) 345,000
15 Follow Me - Uncle Kracker (2001) 335,000
16 All The Small Things - Blink 182 (2000) 330,000
17 Welcome To The Black Parade - My Chemical Romance (2006) 325,000
18 Fire - Kasabian (2009) 320,000
19 Dakota - Stereophonics (2005) 315,000
20 Butterfly - Crazytown (2001) 310,000
But I think today and going forward you are more likely to see, ball parking here, twice the amount of great bands with sixty to seventy percent of the following as compared to back in the day. There are only X amount of people and those dollars/time/ and interest are more and more spread out.
And that reminds me... Teenage Dirtbag was one of the first 2 or 3 songs I ever downloaded on Napster. That and SR-71 - Right Now. How about that for a throwback :geek:
'10- MSG 1-2 '11- PJ20
'12- MIA; DeLuna '13- Wrigley; Pitt; Brooklyn 1-2; Philly 1-2; Baltimore; Seattle
'14- Denver '16- Philly 1-2; MSG 2
'17- Pilgrimage Music Fest (Eddie)
'18- Fenway
There just seems to be a lack of rock bands appealing to the mainstream and I really can't get my head around it.
In terms of sales in other decades a quick search turned up:
70's: Elton John, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Abba, Led Zeppelin
80's: Prince, Madonna, U2, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen
I think everybody's aware that rock music has subgenres. The majority of those acts are unknown to casual music fans and that plays a huge part in advancing the music to the next generations.
Radiohead, as great as some of their work from this century has been, made their legend with Ok Computer.
I think we seen the kinda clout that Kanye carries when he was invited to the 121212 show. He may have been a bust, but the simple fact that he was invited speaks volumes.
Bon Iver/ Arcade Fire- A few Grammy's don't make a legend that carries for generations. They each got about a week's worth of notoriety for the armful of trophy's and have had very little buzz since. Arcade Fire never matched the initial buzz of Bowie given them a big thumb's up, including their Grammy wins.
Tell a person on the street that Beck has put out an album since Loser or Where It's At and you'll shock the pants right off of them.
The Strokes are another band that's yet to match their initial buzz.
As for the rest of them(excluding Outkast), a minor hit here or there or influencing another artist that very few people have heard of.....I just don't see how that makes an artist we'll be talking about in 50 years.
Obviously, a PJ message board is gonna be most concerned with the state of rock music, but even other genres are pretty lacking.
I think part of the problem is the parameters have changed. IN the 90's, its clear what was massive and mainstream. You sold a ton of records, were on MTV, were on the radio. In 2013, its hard to define what mainstream even means. MTV and Vh1 dont play videos. The radio no longer seems the place where people discover new bands and magazines and outlets like RS and Spin are being overtaken by blogs and online media. Record sales no longer indicate popularity since most people our age download. In 2013, an unknown and unsigned band can get their song used on some of the most watched tv shows airing, like Greys Anatomy, which will cause millions of people to check out your song on YouTube, but is that really "huge"? Where you are it would be Skins. or misfits. Thats what "big" and massive bands do these days. Thats what breakout and mainstream success looks like in 2013. Getting a song played on Skins is the equivilant of a number 1 album or getting played on MTV. Yet, the impact of all this seems less than in decades past.
Take a perfect example of a band in the 2000's blowing up and becoming huge as part of this new paradigm. Snow Patrol had been a semi successful indie band prior to 2005, then Grey's used Chasing Cars in an episode. The song became huge, the band started playing arenas, and the band blew up. But how big are Snow Patrol? How big really did that exposure make them? Huge in 2000's and huge in the 70's are WILDLY different things.
Same could be said for Float On era Modest Mouse, or Death Cab after being on The OC, The Fray after being on Scrubs and Greys.
What im saying is, no band in 2013 and the modern era can be that big or massive again. So, thats why the "biggest" and most important artists, all of which i listed, are all "big" but "semi big".
Bands like The Decemberists, Death Cab, Modest Mouse and The Shins, Id argue are the biggest names in indie rock, have had major sucesss, sold millions of records, but none are THAT big.
Essentially your main question can't be answered in 2013, because no one knows how to define it. I think you are confusing record sales with importance. Was Nirvana classic because they sold millions of records? Is London Calling classic because it sold alot? Especially in 2013, I think its hard to make that argument, because with all the downloading the numbers at the top of those "best selling albums of the 21st century" are just guesses. You can't measure "massive bands" like that anymore. The world as a whole is buying less music, yet clearly people are listening to as much music, or even more, than they were in previous decades.
All this means, its hard for any one band to become the next Led Zep or Beatles and sell a billion records. No one buys records anymore for one. And two most people listen to a ridiculous amount of varying music. Few people devote years to one band and one band only fan worship. And the speed at which new music comes out also precludes massive bands.
If I were to name the biggest bands in the world in 2013 Id say Mumford and Sons would be the band. They've sold some records, they can play arenas. But how big are they really? Is the success of a band like that in 2013 equivilant to the success U2 had post Joshua Tree or what Led Zep had in the 70's? Clearly its not. I dont imagine Marcus Mumford with a butler and a Rolls and a huge house. The economy just doesnt allow that, not even for huge bands like that. Breaking into the mainstream is hard to define. Are Mumford and KOL as HUGE as Led Zep or U2 were? Obviously they arent, and alot of that is the modern world.
I think thats why my list is made of "outskirts" bands. Thats all that exists in 2013.
My list is made up of the most important bands of the 2000's. And Id be willing to bet the mortgage that most of them will have lasting careers and will be remembered.
Plus record sales and acclaim and massiveness NOW doesnt necessarily even translate into classic or being remembered. Take Nick Drake. Unknown and died forgotten. Wasnt until the late 90;s when a car commercial used his music, and the 2000's were filled with singer songwriters who were majorly influenced by him.
I think you seem to want to have things in a manner that they no longer exist. Record sales are useless measurements in 2013. Even less useful in determining lasting impact or classic band status.
Nevermind would have been a classic whether it sold 500,000 or 10 million. IN 2013 its not possible for a band to sell like that, to become mainstream, at least in the way you define it, and to become classic and legendary. It just doesnt happen.
But how does a band appeal to the mainstream? How do you blow up in 2013? Record sales arent going to tell you that. Nor is radio spins. Awards seem to tell you even less.
The meaninglessness of record sales can be acertained by talking to any band in 2013, who will tell you they make most of their money touring and selling merch.
Thats true for all. Justin Timberlakes album and Kanye's new one which will end up being the 2 biggest selling albums of the year, probably wont sell more than a few million each. The days of selling a million units a week like in the early 2000's is long gone.
Frank Ocean and The Weeknd are massive and huge, both have become "mainstream", but their success isnt measured in record sales. Nor are they really that huge.
Subgenres influence the lack of "huge" mainstream bands. If 20 bands are releasing albums every week for the entire year, and we have access to all of them, and outlets like blogs deem a new album each week as essential, how much time does any one band get? Its listen to an album for a few days, recycle the songs you dislike, and on to the next one. Thats modern music culture. To deny this is to deny reality.
People seem unwilling to understand the concept changed. The OP is viewing the question in an outdated manner. The talk of record sales and all that is useless nowadays.
U2 Joshua Tree era and KOL and Mumford in the 2000's. Theres a huge difference. Its based in the economic crisis, declining record sales across the board, the industry collapsing, the sheer amount of music released each year, the decentralization of the way consumers find and obtain new music, the disposible nature of how the music is consumed, the "everyman" nature of most huge bands these days. Look at Portland. A breeding ground for some of the most important and successful indie bands of the 2000's. A new Seattle. Yet the rock god worship of Seattle is nonexistant. People don't mob and harass Isaac Brock or Britt Daniel or Ben Gibbard. Most of those guys aren't living in 20 room mansions. In fact from what I can ascertain Isaac Brock lives in a middle class neighborhood and his house is average sized. People treat these people like normal citizens. The days of Robert Plant tour bus antics and excess seem to be largely a thing of the past, even for the biggest bands in the world.
Thats the whole point. The fault in most peoples arguments here, seems to be legendary and classic WITHOUT exception means selling millions, being incredibly famous and "being mainstream". Despite the obvious problem of defining those terms, the reality is a band can be classic and remembered and not sell a ton.
The new paradigm is legendary and classic without being a household name. Because from my standpoint the list of "best albums of 2000's" list is perfect, filled with amazing albums and bands, many of which will stand the test of time and will be remembered for decades to come.
A band will never, even if the world kept turning for eons, sell 300 million like Led Zep did. Let alone 40 million.
The measuring stick needs to be recalibrated.
The idea that Bon Iver or Arcade Fire or anyone else WONT be remembered, based solely on the fact they didnt sell 10 million, or arent known by grandmas and uncles is a silly argument that doesnt hold weight.
This idea of legendary and classic in the 2000s needs to be recalibrated by some of you here.
Nobody is talking about Led Zep figures, I'm talking Nickelback, Kings Of Leon, The KIllers, Coldplay kind of figures - there's your recalibration.
Album sales is only one criterion.
There are plenty of classic albums that didn't sell millions of copies:
Nick Drake - Pink Moon
Television - Marquee Moon
etc
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Why are there no bands to break into the mainstream in rock and become legends in the last 10 years? No one has money to buy albums, thus even the big bands never see the returns of their success, the economy collapsing at large means even bands arent going to be living high and mighty and by and large tales of wild hotel room excess doesnt exist anymore, and theres less of a "all for one" mentality these days.
bands like Nirvana and Led Zep and u2, got big, not only because of their undeniable talent, but also because you had only a limited amount of bands who could get famous. If you didnt hear a band on the radio, or later on during MTV see them on MTV, you flat out didnt hear them. Everyone was watching MTV and everyone saw Teen Spirit 10 times every day during that time period. No surprise what happened.
In 2013, there are as many ways to obtain music as their are bands. Festivals feature hundreds of bands. The old question of "what kind of music do you like" is meaningless to most people. " Well I listen to Usher, but Ive been into the new Bruce album, last week I was blasting the Joanna Newsom album, and before that Skrillex". Isnt it self evident why that sort of behavior would result in no single band rising above the crop?
The bands who became huge formed lasting emotional and personal bonds with fans. And thats certainly possible in 2013, but music is more disposible, more "im listening to this while I excersize on the elliptical, or on my commute to work". Most people dont even listen to albums. They listen to songs, thanks to iTunes and iPods. You listen to the new Kanye, delete the songs you hate, and are left with 5 songs, and thats your listening experience.
Few people seem to have one single band they love. Thats why the festival example is pertinant. I dont get the sense Coachella and Bonnaroo audiences like a single genre or style. They eat up Sir Paul, and a dubstep artist at the same festival and can come away from it saying both rocked.
Teens arent focusing on a single band. They like hundreds. Thousands even. They listen to a few songs from each maybe, but their attention is spread way more than in the old days. Why spend 4 months listening to a single band or a single album over and over? Few people do that.
The imploding music industry is self evident. You seem to view this barrier that bands in the 2000's have been unable to go past. That barrier is at once non existant and I think a figment of your imagination of what music is these days, but its also nebulous and doesnt have meaning.
Most bands arent selling records. A view of Billboard or Soundscan or talking to any record label exec reveals this. And its obvious. Record sales have been declining since the days of Napster. Are there some bands that sell units? Sure but most bands, the majority arent.
I think you need to forget the album sales argument. It doesnt tell us anything. And it seems like you are being led astray by the importance of it.
I think what the 2000's have been is, a ton of bands, who sold reasonbly well, not massive amounts, which nonetheless influenced culture, the public and other bands.
Precisely, the classic and ultimate example would be Velvet Underground or The Ramones. Besides, most quality art across the board is ignored or bashed, or criticized. Art is meant to be abrasive and challenge the audience.
KOL's success I dont know how to explain. I still remember them as some small unknown indie band opening for PJ. No one knew who they were. Then Sex On Fire hit and they became massive.
Nickelbacks success has to do with major labels, their success happened just on the cusp on the Napster stuff, their first hit was in like 1998 or something, and Silver Side up was in 2001. They get played on the radio, and did for the entire 2000's. They are on a major label. When Vh1 and MTV do show videos, or did in the 2000's, Nickelback was sure to be played. You are way likelier even now, when you turn on the radio, to hear Nickelback, as opposed to say Bon Iver, even though I think ones way more relevant and more of the moment than the other. Plus being on a major label has major advantages in terms of marketing options. I wouldnt be shocked if someone like Pepsi or whoever sponsored the Nickelback tours.
Nickelback sells records. but KOL's sales even during the Sex on Fire heydey didnt reflect the type of sales you'd expect a big band like that to sell. You are in the UK right? In america at least, KOL hasnt sold that many records. For a band that could be considered the biggest in the world, their sales are shockingly low. in 5 years only by the night has only sold 2 million in the us. Thats nothing. In early 2000, bands would sell a million in ONE WEEK. 6.2 million worldwide in 5 years isnt much either. Thats the dichotomy. An undeniably huge band with record sales of 6 million in 5 years, on the heels of two of the biggest rock songs Sex on Fire and Use Somebody of the 2000's.
The power of sales and the power of a hit song doesnt mean much anymore. Unless you are Adele.
I dont really think KOL or Nickelback sell all that well. Nickelback's record sales pale in comparison to the early success. The new album has sold 500,000 copies in 2 years in the US.
While those artists may not have sold well at first, they were immediately hugely influential to music, fashion, society and other art forms. The Ramones made huge bands like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd dinosaurs and Velvet Underground brought a realness to music that wasn't really there before.
I think thats ultimately the point im trying to point out with influential and important bands of the 2000's. Its clear to anyone who lives in a major city the influence of hipster culture and indie music. Most of the bands who helped popularize that style of music and fashion and talk and the whole lifestyle, are big, but are big within that culture.
And i think those bands I listed in my list, have been massively influential, they just arent selling a million copes of each album. But they influence in a variety of ways. Maybe its fashion. Maybe its lyrics. Maybe its actual sound.
Hell Portlandia has got to be one of the more influential shows around, but I would guarantee it isnt seen by more than 2 million, if that.
Whether than translates to classic or legendary, its too early to tell. But reguardless, i think its clear to anyone who's been to Billysburg or Portland or Brooklyn that music that sells relatively small amounts of units can influence an entire culture and way of life.
And that has almost nothing to do with whether or not an album or artist is classic.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Same with Illinois. Masterpiece album. One of the most important albums of the entire decade. But id be shocked if it sold more than a million. Yet that album had massive impact. But Sufjan isnt known much beyond the immediate culture or subculture. And what type of music does he play? You go insane trying to pin it down.
The mistake I think is having any sort of parameters. I know few pure rock, or pure hip hop or pure blues bands. Nowadays bands mix styles from album to album and even song to song.
I just think you are talking about something different to the subject at hand. My point is that there are precious few mainstream rock bands from 2000 that can compete with previous eras. That in no way devalues any of the artists you are talking about, and perhaps these sub-cultures have a bigger influence and following now than they did back then. But, there has to be a reason why they haven't crossed over to the mainstream when other rock bands have.
The whole point is theres no apparatus to cross over. Its a new age. So far you've mentioned you consider album sales as a marker of a band breaking mainstream. What you fail to seem to grasp is the meaninglessness of record sales nowadays. Its absolutely useless. In discussing whether a band has "made it" "broken through" "gone mainstream" or "hit it big", in 2013, I think there are 15 different other ways, more coherent and more valuable to us, to decipher whether a band has done any of those things. You can't really tell whats mainstream or not. Mumford is the perfect example. Even with their success, I dont consider them mainstream. Death Cab and Modest Mouse are no doubt the 2 biggest examples of indie this decade, are either of them truely mainstream? If they are, neither has record sales to show for it. They;ve broken through, but the impact of their music pales in comparison to big bands of previous generations.
The question needs to be altered to compensate for varied definitions in what indie even means, varied definitions on what is success in a post napster climate, definitions of whats success in a climate where the music industry is crumbling, and one where music is increasingly decentrailized and without a true center of gravity.
Bon Iver and Arcade Fire can't be on the cover of magazines and Newsweek and all that because few people subscribe to magazines, and the impact of RS and Spin and even one closer to home for you, NME is way lessened. Back in early 2000 NME could break a band. They have clout but not sure they have that much anymore.
Bands cant be on the radio. Most people recognize radio as a payola scam, and radio's power has lessened this decade.
Bands can't be on MTV and VH1 anymore. I dont know what the UK equivilant is.
All the ways you measure success are no longer existant. And the things that do happen, like a few years back Odd Future breaking out during an appearance on Fallon, all of that is online. How do you really measure how many people checked out Iron and Wine on Kimmel? Your left with neilsen ratings points, and hits on a site. Who knows how many of those hits or views actually translate into something beyond "watching it once and deleting it forever", or "watching it and hating it", or "watching the show but tuning out and disliking the music act".
So were left with content and hype online, buzz on blogs, end of year acclaim and best of lists, exposure of the bands via placement in tv shows and movies, and the impact the music has on a specific niche culture. You cant really measure it beyond that.
I dont know how a band in 2013 hits it big beyond what ive explored here. Id argue hipster's and indie music are mainstream, so any music associated with it is mainstream. I think our parents and grandparents do know what a hipster is. Clearly, the culture of the music, which has gone mainstream, is well known. Fixies and beard and PBR and all that I think people know that stuff.
You cant understand your original question or expect to get coherent answers, unless you accept that 2013 is completely unrecognizable from 1990, or even 2001. And that a mainstream band in 2013 means wildy different things than it used to. A biggest band in the world, in 2013 means wildly different things.
It feels like you are a 2000 version of facepollution. I think to truly deconstruct this question we need to deal in todays terms and values relevant to 2013. A bands success in 2013 has absolutely nothing to do with record sales, radio play, or possibly even how "mainstream" they are. Bon Iver and The National are the two examples that come to mind. Trouble Will Find Me, will be high on nearly every best of 2013 list, has been universally well recieved by fans and critics, and it seems to be viewed as one of their best. Yet, it most likely wont sell more than 500,000 copies.
So you think it completely incomprehensible that there could be a correlation between mainstream success and accessibility? Had Radiohead dropped Kid A after The Bends do you think they would be in the position they are in now? Would Pearl Jam be as popular now if they had released No Code first and Ten came along as album number four? By your rationale only indie hipsters are going to be able to name a memorable rock album from the 2000's in twenty years time.
Sure, the ways in which people experience and learn of new music are different now to how they were ten or fifteen years ago, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING has changed. Pop music still dominates the charts - is Beyonce's success really down to anything different than Mariah Carey's success in the 90's? Catchy tunes, strong vocals - people still like those things.