Cage the Elephant is a more recent band that I think has a lot of potential.
I thought Wolfmother was on the track to become 'classic'. The first album was pretty damn good. Cosmic Egg wasn't bad either. The problem? Andrew Stockdale seems to be a little difficult to work alongside from the brief bit of news I have heard.
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?
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?
I don't think you can include QOTSA in that statement. They still stick to pretty small venues.
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.
I definitely think there is a correlation between mainstream success and accessibility, its just that term and those definitions are so nebulous now. Id personally consider Arcade Fire, Bon Iver, Vampire Weekend, The National, in order, to be the top artists in big tent indie, some of the biggest artists in the world. But the success they've had can't be measured in album sales, id wager none have sold a million. yet all are about as successful as any band could hope to be. Ask any of them and Id say theyd all tell you they never thought theyd be this successful Any of them could headline a major festival. Any could play in an arena.
Id argue the mainstream has moved closer to the edges, or closer to hipster indie music, and not the other way around. You see acceptance of wildly experimental music that now features on SNL live performances and on Fallon, stuff like The Weeknd and Frank Ocean, Odd Future. I think thats a result of the mainstreaming of indie music. Girls and Portlandia are two of the most popular shows on tv. American Apparel is extremely popular. And bands labeled indie now populate major labels, while Taylor Swift actually may be more indier than anyone as she's on an actual indie label. The whole balance has shifted. As I said there is no center in this new world. Bon Iver and Arcade Fire and The weeknd winning grammys and Frank Ocean being nominated tells you all you need to know. 15 years ago none of those bands would have been nominated or recognized.
Its hard to define because no one knows what the parameters are. Everyone has a different idea of what successful is. Everyone defines indie differently. Everyone has a different idea of what crossing over or breaking through means.
Absolutely I think there are cult bands in 2013. Thats my main crux of the argument. Thats ALL we have in 2013. Some bands that are big in specific genres but not big for the entire population. Skrillex is huge, but he's a big deal to a specific audience. The hype makes it seem like they are a big deal. I was coming into discovering AF around the time all the craziness happened. As a UK resident you should be able to tell us better than anyone the madness that ensued after Funeral dropped and around the time of Neon Bible. NME and everyone was going nuts. Chris martin called them the best band in history. People called their live shows religious experiences. It was easy to feel like AF was taking over the world. They clearly werent. Thats what exists in 2013. That exists for Bon Iver. The National. Vampire Weekend. The reaction to AF and Bon iver winning grammys only illustrates this.
I think what seperates Coldplay and KOL, I dont know if Id put QOTSA in the same category, is that they have a massive fanbase. They play arenas. headline festivals. Can tour anywhere and sell out. Sex on Fire and Yellow are songs everyone knows, moms have heard it on the commute to work, dad's have it on their own ipods. Record sales have little to nothing to do with naming them 2 of the biggest bands in the world. Im positive both of these bands make the majority of their revenue from touring, just like every single other band does. Its just a take from a show for a Coldplay show is measured in millions of dollars, or for them I guess pounds. As opposed to a smaller band, who obviously isnt making that much money. Coldplay and KOL are on major labels and know how to market their music and have a way to do so with the labels backing.
I think its probably measured by number of fans. Coldplay has a ridiculous number of fans. I love coldplay, my mom does as well. So does my sister. My uncle does. So they have cross generational appeal. Their music is unoffending making is accessible to just about anyone. But they also write just great songs so theres value in it as well.
You ever watch old movies? Im a big fan of them. And the stars of old, Brando, James Dead, Cary grant, its clear they were gigantic stars. Being a star meant something. Nowadays, most stars arent as famous as Cary Grant. Thats what Im saying happened in music. Bands still can get big and become mainstream, but its not record sales that signify it. Big in 2013 for everything, for the lifestyles of us normal people, is alot
So if KOL and Coldplay got big why hasnt anyone else? Well I think it's alot harder to do this in 2013 than it was in 2008 for KOL and 2003 or so for Coldplay. Most bands that are on indies have a long uphill climb to reach those heights, and those on major labels often deal with incompetant head honcho executives who are living in the days of past. The stratification of the music industry also has something to do with it. There are so many ways to break out and be "discovered". Blogs, tv shows, commercials, movies, on the strength of live shows, word of mouth, bigger artists vouching for you, festivals, etc... The image of a band with groupies and mansions and Motley Crue still lifestyles has been tempered and no longer exists. The biggest bands have less, less money, less status, less fame. Id bet the Followill boys and Chris Martin are recognized in public, but I highly doubt they are swarmed. Bands now have more bands to compete with. Which in a way negates every band.
Its harder for bands to rise to the top and break out of the noise of the thousands of other bands making music right now. With so many bands everything cancels each other out. Bon Iver can get big, but only so big, because I dont know anyone who's following Bon Iver across the country and listening to only Bon Iver for the entire summer. Theres 50 other bands on my ipod, and 10 bands I plan to listen to this week alone, why would I spend it focusing solely on one artist. If you are a talented indie rock band sending out demos right now, where do you focus attention on? How do you make yourself stand out from the millions of other indie bands in every city in the world right now? The commodification of the music plays a big role.
You live in the UK. Im sure you saw what happened in the 2000's after NME annointed a few bands king-Franz Ferdinand, Bloc Party, BabyShambles, Razorlight. All of a sudden hundreds of bands started to sound like them. Franz and Bloc and Razorlight got big, but you were left with a few big bands and hundreds of small bands cancelling each other out. Each fighting to become known amidst 50 million similar styled bands. That ceates a major bottleneck.
We're left with a 2013 version of success. Gatsby no longer exists. Lavish parties and fame to that degree is a thing of the past. What we have are bands who are moderately successful.
As was pointed out earlier, musicians point to touring as their big moneymaker. That's always been the case, but now it holds true now more than ever. But, what venues are all these new classic bands playing? Not many of them are able to headline arenas night in and night out. I don't see them headlining arenas night after night or festivals without some major co-headliners.
As was pointed out earlier, musicians point to touring as their big moneymaker. That's always been the case, but now it holds true now more than ever. But, what venues are all these new classic bands playing? Not many of them are able to headline arenas night in and night out. I don't see them headlining arenas night after night or festivals without some major co-headliners.
If you are addressing me, i think the point being that this is obvious, and that results in less money for the band. A band like U2 thats able to headline anything makes bank. But a band like Bon Iver, where he brings 12 of his friends on tour, with another big co headliner, that obviously lessens the money they make. Which is precisely the point. No ones living high on the hog right now.
Concert attendence has dropped, which makes sense in a recession. Concert prices have increased. And thats probably two fold reasoning. The bands need to make up the money they arent making in record sales. And labels and ticketing outlets also want to increase the revenue.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,070
I'm impressed with how consistently some of you are championing young bands. I really do home some of them become classics. I just think these things take time- a good deal of time. Instant gratification, flash in the pan, here today gone tomorrow- those terms define too much of just about everything today. Like good wine, good whiskey, good cheese or good rock, aging and seasoning are big factors. Hey, I should know, right?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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?
I don't think you can include QOTSA in that statement. They still stick to pretty small venues.
Hmm, not here in the UK they don't, they're playing 12,000 + seat arenas later this year.
I definitely think there is a correlation between mainstream success and accessibility, its just that term and those definitions are so nebulous now. Id personally consider Arcade Fire, Bon Iver, Vampire Weekend, The National, in order, to be the top artists in big tent indie, some of the biggest artists in the world. But the success they've had can't be measured in album sales, id wager none have sold a million. yet all are about as successful as any band could hope to be. Ask any of them and Id say theyd all tell you they never thought theyd be this successful Any of them could headline a major festival. Any could play in an arena.
Of those you listed only Arcade Fire could headline a major festival here in the UK, or an arena. And to be fair, given that the initial buzz about them has died down, I’m not sure they would be quite the draw you think they would.
Id argue the mainstream has moved closer to the edges, or closer to hipster indie music, and not the other way around. As I said there is no center in this new world. Bon Iver and Arcade Fire and The weeknd winning grammys and Frank Ocean being nominated tells you all you need to know. 15 years ago none of those bands would have been nominated or recognized.
I’m in no way arguing that indie has become more accepted. What I’m arguing, is that there must be a reason why say KOL fans are prepared to part with their money and buy records and yet all these indie fans are not.
I was coming into discovering AF around the time all the craziness happened. As a UK resident you should be able to tell us better than anyone the madness that ensued after Funeral dropped and around the time of Neon Bible. NME and everyone was going nuts. Chris martin called them the best band in history. People called their live shows religious experiences. It was easy to feel like AF was taking over the world. They clearly werent. Thats what exists in 2013. That exists for Bon Iver. The National. Vampire Weekend. The reaction to AF and Bon iver winning grammys only illustrates this.
Oh yeah, it was hilarious, and no, I do not place any stock in Chris Martin’s opinion. Their success largely came off the back of one song – a great big anthemic song that sounded great at festivals with a huge crowd singing along, can you guess which one I’m talking about? I’m not knocking them at all, I own all their records, and I’ve seen them live (they are great), but that was how they got to be a sizeable band, not because the mainstream suddenly decided to just embrace an indie band.
I think what seperates Coldplay and KOL, I dont know if Id put QOTSA in the same category, is that they have a massive fanbase. They play arenas. headline festivals. Can tour anywhere and sell out. Sex on Fire and Yellow are songs everyone knows, moms have heard it on the commute to work, dad's have it on their own ipods. Record sales have little to nothing to do with naming them 2 of the biggest bands in the world. Im positive both of these bands make the majority of their revenue from touring, just like every single other band does. Its just a take from a show for a Coldplay show is measured in millions of dollars, or for them I guess pounds. As opposed to a smaller band, who obviously isnt making that much money. Coldplay and KOL are on major labels and know how to market their music and have a way to do so with the labels backing.
No shit Sherlock, of course they have huge fanbases. So are you denying that there is any correlation between record sales and popularity? QOTSA just got to number one in the US on an indie label after a six year gap between records, I just read a comment from Matador’s founder who said “the quality of the album itself is the single biggest reason for commercial success”. I agree.
You ever watch old movies? Im a big fan of them. And the stars of old, Brando, James Dead, Cary grant, its clear they were gigantic stars. Being a star meant something. Nowadays, most stars arent as famous as Cary Grant. Thats what Im saying happened in music. Bands still can get big and become mainstream, but its not record sales that signify it. Big in 2013 for everything, for the lifestyles of us normal people, is alot
Hmm, I don’t understand the movie star analogy, are Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, George Clooney not as big stars in today as those you mentioned were in yesteryear? I’m sure the way they were perceived back then was different since there was a little more mystique about them because we couldn’t look into the private lives etc the way we do now, but that’s about it.
But back to the music, I think more obscure or less accessible bands can become big to an extent, but they do seem to hit a ceiling, not based on competition fighting other similar bands for people's attention, or lack of label support, but because they don't have the accessible music that leads to broad appeal. Which I don't think should be dismissed. I think hype plays a massive part in this. For example everybody went nuts over Kid A because of the acclaim OK Computer received - at that point they could have released vitually anything and it would have been a success because nobody would have dared said they didn't 'get' it. I actually think this was the pivotal moment for the acceptance of less 'obvious' music. There's no doubt that it's a more challenging listen. But, and here is what I'm getting at, back in the day bands like Pink Floyd were releasing challenging music, yet the mainstream embraced it. I'm stunned that a band like Tool can sell millions of copies of a record like Lateralus, which is not an easily digestible record by any stretch, but it was obviously accessible enough.
I definitely think there is an art in being able to make a record both accessible AND high quality. For that reason alone I would personally rate OK Computer over Kid A. You are right, plenty of bands are making great records today, but they are playing to niche audiences, albeit those audiences may have grown. I'm not lamenting the fact that we don't have a new NIrvana, I'm just saddened by the fact that rock music is so poorly represented in the mainstream in terms of new bands. It reminds me of an interview with Dave Grohl where he said he feels like the Foos have become the token 'rock' band for awards shows, because there are so few other bands of their ilk.
There was a quote in his article about Phish from a few weeks back that basically answers the OPs question, while being fair to both sides of the issue. I'll have to dig it up.
Musical greatness is typically achieved by two kinds of artists. The first kind (like Jimi Hendrix, Nick Drake, Kurt Cobain, or the Notorious B.I.G.) shine with retina-shredding brightness for a very short period of time and wind up changing music in some tangible way. You almost always have to die to achieve this sort of greatness. If Ian Curtis had recorded Unknown Pleasures and Closer, and then lived to create three decades' worth of half-assed Joy Division songs that made Unknown Pleasures and Closer seem like flukes, he'd be Rivers Cuomo.
The other kind of greatness derives from never being less than good (and staying connected to a sizable core audience) over many years. U2, R.E.M., Sonic Youth, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, and Wilco are the most notable recent examples of this lived-in greatness — and so is Phish, though it rarely gets mentioned in this company.
I think this is the crux of the argument. Many bands regarded as classic are just consistently good, not game changing great. Game changing great is pretty limited company. Consistently good will always been around.
The only band in the rockfish realm I'd say is game changing great from the 00s may be Arcade Fire and even then not to the edge Nirvana was. But they did usher Indie Rock to the mainstream. But there have been some consistently good bands in the past 10 years.
Yeah I think he has a really good insight on this particular topic. In the link I posted he talks about the need for both mainstream rock bands and the need for the more obscure or less obvious. Quite often it's these gateway 'classic' bands that wear their influences on their sleeves that act as a gateway for people to get into the more obscure, yet equally rewarding stuff.
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?
I don't think you can include QOTSA in that statement. They still stick to pretty small venues.
Hmm, not here in the UK they don't, they're playing 12,000 + seat arenas later this year.
In NA 12000 is kind of small ... I live within a 4 hour drive of at least 10 20000 - seat venues and that are just the hockey/basketball arenas.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
In NA 12000 is kind of small ... I live within a 4 hour drive of at least 10 20000 - seat venues and that are just the hockey/basketball arenas.
Screw driving four hours to a show In less than four hours I could be in any number of European countries watching a band in a massive arena. Regardless, living only an hour outside of London means I get to see pretty much any band I want to see since it's the one place bands will almost definitely play if they're playing Europe.
Anyway, my point was that over here at least, QOTSA have progressed from theatres that hold 4,000 to arenas that hold considerably more.
Comments
I thought Wolfmother was on the track to become 'classic'. The first album was pretty damn good. Cosmic Egg wasn't bad either. The problem? Andrew Stockdale seems to be a little difficult to work alongside from the brief bit of news I have heard.
Good questions to ponder.
I don't think you can include QOTSA in that statement. They still stick to pretty small venues.
I definitely think there is a correlation between mainstream success and accessibility, its just that term and those definitions are so nebulous now. Id personally consider Arcade Fire, Bon Iver, Vampire Weekend, The National, in order, to be the top artists in big tent indie, some of the biggest artists in the world. But the success they've had can't be measured in album sales, id wager none have sold a million. yet all are about as successful as any band could hope to be. Ask any of them and Id say theyd all tell you they never thought theyd be this successful Any of them could headline a major festival. Any could play in an arena.
Id argue the mainstream has moved closer to the edges, or closer to hipster indie music, and not the other way around. You see acceptance of wildly experimental music that now features on SNL live performances and on Fallon, stuff like The Weeknd and Frank Ocean, Odd Future. I think thats a result of the mainstreaming of indie music. Girls and Portlandia are two of the most popular shows on tv. American Apparel is extremely popular. And bands labeled indie now populate major labels, while Taylor Swift actually may be more indier than anyone as she's on an actual indie label. The whole balance has shifted. As I said there is no center in this new world. Bon Iver and Arcade Fire and The weeknd winning grammys and Frank Ocean being nominated tells you all you need to know. 15 years ago none of those bands would have been nominated or recognized.
Its hard to define because no one knows what the parameters are. Everyone has a different idea of what successful is. Everyone defines indie differently. Everyone has a different idea of what crossing over or breaking through means.
Absolutely I think there are cult bands in 2013. Thats my main crux of the argument. Thats ALL we have in 2013. Some bands that are big in specific genres but not big for the entire population. Skrillex is huge, but he's a big deal to a specific audience. The hype makes it seem like they are a big deal. I was coming into discovering AF around the time all the craziness happened. As a UK resident you should be able to tell us better than anyone the madness that ensued after Funeral dropped and around the time of Neon Bible. NME and everyone was going nuts. Chris martin called them the best band in history. People called their live shows religious experiences. It was easy to feel like AF was taking over the world. They clearly werent. Thats what exists in 2013. That exists for Bon Iver. The National. Vampire Weekend. The reaction to AF and Bon iver winning grammys only illustrates this.
I think what seperates Coldplay and KOL, I dont know if Id put QOTSA in the same category, is that they have a massive fanbase. They play arenas. headline festivals. Can tour anywhere and sell out. Sex on Fire and Yellow are songs everyone knows, moms have heard it on the commute to work, dad's have it on their own ipods. Record sales have little to nothing to do with naming them 2 of the biggest bands in the world. Im positive both of these bands make the majority of their revenue from touring, just like every single other band does. Its just a take from a show for a Coldplay show is measured in millions of dollars, or for them I guess pounds. As opposed to a smaller band, who obviously isnt making that much money. Coldplay and KOL are on major labels and know how to market their music and have a way to do so with the labels backing.
I think its probably measured by number of fans. Coldplay has a ridiculous number of fans. I love coldplay, my mom does as well. So does my sister. My uncle does. So they have cross generational appeal. Their music is unoffending making is accessible to just about anyone. But they also write just great songs so theres value in it as well.
You ever watch old movies? Im a big fan of them. And the stars of old, Brando, James Dead, Cary grant, its clear they were gigantic stars. Being a star meant something. Nowadays, most stars arent as famous as Cary Grant. Thats what Im saying happened in music. Bands still can get big and become mainstream, but its not record sales that signify it. Big in 2013 for everything, for the lifestyles of us normal people, is alot
So if KOL and Coldplay got big why hasnt anyone else? Well I think it's alot harder to do this in 2013 than it was in 2008 for KOL and 2003 or so for Coldplay. Most bands that are on indies have a long uphill climb to reach those heights, and those on major labels often deal with incompetant head honcho executives who are living in the days of past. The stratification of the music industry also has something to do with it. There are so many ways to break out and be "discovered". Blogs, tv shows, commercials, movies, on the strength of live shows, word of mouth, bigger artists vouching for you, festivals, etc... The image of a band with groupies and mansions and Motley Crue still lifestyles has been tempered and no longer exists. The biggest bands have less, less money, less status, less fame. Id bet the Followill boys and Chris Martin are recognized in public, but I highly doubt they are swarmed. Bands now have more bands to compete with. Which in a way negates every band.
Its harder for bands to rise to the top and break out of the noise of the thousands of other bands making music right now. With so many bands everything cancels each other out. Bon Iver can get big, but only so big, because I dont know anyone who's following Bon Iver across the country and listening to only Bon Iver for the entire summer. Theres 50 other bands on my ipod, and 10 bands I plan to listen to this week alone, why would I spend it focusing solely on one artist. If you are a talented indie rock band sending out demos right now, where do you focus attention on? How do you make yourself stand out from the millions of other indie bands in every city in the world right now? The commodification of the music plays a big role.
You live in the UK. Im sure you saw what happened in the 2000's after NME annointed a few bands king-Franz Ferdinand, Bloc Party, BabyShambles, Razorlight. All of a sudden hundreds of bands started to sound like them. Franz and Bloc and Razorlight got big, but you were left with a few big bands and hundreds of small bands cancelling each other out. Each fighting to become known amidst 50 million similar styled bands. That ceates a major bottleneck.
We're left with a 2013 version of success. Gatsby no longer exists. Lavish parties and fame to that degree is a thing of the past. What we have are bands who are moderately successful.
If you are addressing me, i think the point being that this is obvious, and that results in less money for the band. A band like U2 thats able to headline anything makes bank. But a band like Bon Iver, where he brings 12 of his friends on tour, with another big co headliner, that obviously lessens the money they make. Which is precisely the point. No ones living high on the hog right now.
Concert attendence has dropped, which makes sense in a recession. Concert prices have increased. And thats probably two fold reasoning. The bands need to make up the money they arent making in record sales. And labels and ticketing outlets also want to increase the revenue.
Hmm, not here in the UK they don't, they're playing 12,000 + seat arenas later this year.
Of those you listed only Arcade Fire could headline a major festival here in the UK, or an arena. And to be fair, given that the initial buzz about them has died down, I’m not sure they would be quite the draw you think they would.
I’m in no way arguing that indie has become more accepted. What I’m arguing, is that there must be a reason why say KOL fans are prepared to part with their money and buy records and yet all these indie fans are not.
Oh yeah, it was hilarious, and no, I do not place any stock in Chris Martin’s opinion. Their success largely came off the back of one song – a great big anthemic song that sounded great at festivals with a huge crowd singing along, can you guess which one I’m talking about? I’m not knocking them at all, I own all their records, and I’ve seen them live (they are great), but that was how they got to be a sizeable band, not because the mainstream suddenly decided to just embrace an indie band.
No shit Sherlock, of course they have huge fanbases. So are you denying that there is any correlation between record sales and popularity? QOTSA just got to number one in the US on an indie label after a six year gap between records, I just read a comment from Matador’s founder who said “the quality of the album itself is the single biggest reason for commercial success”. I agree.
Hmm, I don’t understand the movie star analogy, are Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, George Clooney not as big stars in today as those you mentioned were in yesteryear? I’m sure the way they were perceived back then was different since there was a little more mystique about them because we couldn’t look into the private lives etc the way we do now, but that’s about it.
But back to the music, I think more obscure or less accessible bands can become big to an extent, but they do seem to hit a ceiling, not based on competition fighting other similar bands for people's attention, or lack of label support, but because they don't have the accessible music that leads to broad appeal. Which I don't think should be dismissed. I think hype plays a massive part in this. For example everybody went nuts over Kid A because of the acclaim OK Computer received - at that point they could have released vitually anything and it would have been a success because nobody would have dared said they didn't 'get' it. I actually think this was the pivotal moment for the acceptance of less 'obvious' music. There's no doubt that it's a more challenging listen. But, and here is what I'm getting at, back in the day bands like Pink Floyd were releasing challenging music, yet the mainstream embraced it. I'm stunned that a band like Tool can sell millions of copies of a record like Lateralus, which is not an easily digestible record by any stretch, but it was obviously accessible enough.
I definitely think there is an art in being able to make a record both accessible AND high quality. For that reason alone I would personally rate OK Computer over Kid A. You are right, plenty of bands are making great records today, but they are playing to niche audiences, albeit those audiences may have grown. I'm not lamenting the fact that we don't have a new NIrvana, I'm just saddened by the fact that rock music is so poorly represented in the mainstream in terms of new bands. It reminds me of an interview with Dave Grohl where he said he feels like the Foos have become the token 'rock' band for awards shows, because there are so few other bands of their ilk.
sums up everything I've been trying to say, and it's far more straight forward
I think this is the crux of the argument. Many bands regarded as classic are just consistently good, not game changing great. Game changing great is pretty limited company. Consistently good will always been around.
The only band in the rockfish realm I'd say is game changing great from the 00s may be Arcade Fire and even then not to the edge Nirvana was. But they did usher Indie Rock to the mainstream. But there have been some consistently good bands in the past 10 years.
In NA 12000 is kind of small ... I live within a 4 hour drive of at least 10 20000 - seat venues and that are just the hockey/basketball arenas.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Screw driving four hours to a show
Anyway, my point was that over here at least, QOTSA have progressed from theatres that hold 4,000 to arenas that hold considerably more.