I'm skeptical of most these artists being hugely remembered. The examples listed in the post header are artists that I think you could ask over 80% of the adult population and they would know who they were. I don't think even right know you could say that a lot of the bands/artists being named are known by 50%. Those referenced musicians in the thread title are ingrained in the industry, much like a Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson were during the 80's and everyone knew their name and still does.
I completely agree with you. Aside from maybe White Stripes/Jack White, and no one so far has mentioned Kendrick Lamar, Radiohead or Jeff Buckley so I'll add them. But other than that, I don't see any of the bands mentioned so far as being "Genre-shifting" or "genre-defining".
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences. 2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes. 3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
I don't know why I'm so obsessed with this question in the first place. Any shrinks in the house?
But anyway, as I was obsessing on this subject yet again today while listening to R.E.M.'s "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" it occurred to me that the reason this band was so good was that all the elements were in place: a singer with a unique voice, great phrasing and distinctive stage presence, a guitar player who, though creating little new in his style, managedto blended influences in a fine manner and gave new life to the "Byrdsian" chiming guitar, a bass player with an usually superb melodic touch and the added bonus of beautiful harmony singing and a drummer who kept it simple, tight and well blended. Add to that the magic touch- that one indispensable ingredient needed for greatness- the chemistry that brings it all together.
So that all led me to wonder if perhaps what will make the next truly outstanding band happen and give it longevity will not necessarily be invention or development of a new style but, rather, the combination of individuals each having something that really stands out from the rest (especially voice- think Stipe, Vedder, Bowie, Jagger, for example), all pulled together by that rare magic that made the greats what the are.
This will happen again. I can't wait!
I take some responsibility in your obsession since I asked the question in the REM thread
I do think that because the "traditional routes to mass fame" (appearing on less than 15 music t.v. shows in US and Europe), articles in less than 25 magazines in US and Europe (but that were read around the world, like Melody Maker and Rolling Stone), and of course mainstream radio airplay... all of those things have changed so much, the only 2 standard measures we still had that were in effect way back when are the airplay/sales charts like Billboard, and live concert ticket sales. Other than that, hasn't everything else about how to measure success changed?
But that doesn't mean therre aren't still standouts. I remember when REM hit that peak of fame, and I would say more than anything else the thing that kept them rising was that they were incredible live and their albums often had very few dud songs on them, so what was not to love? And also that THEY as a band kept pushing themselves, working with a handful of producers (which can be a blessing or a curse sometiems but worked mostly for them), and just pushing themsleves to do new things, play new instruments, ciruclate songwriting... all that keeps the innovations coming. And of course being driven in your writing by current events and what you care about.
I listen to a song like "World Leader Pretend" and I still am on the verge of tears, that song is so masterful, and good lawd with today's politics... anyway... their work is literally very rooted in a time period in some ways, and timeLESS in others. Isn't that a key ingredient to lasting recognition?
I'd like to hear more about how Kanye is one of these artists. I know he's talented, but where is the trail of imact that you see already? I feel like I can point ot more artists and scenes influenced by Jay-Z than I can Kanye. I'm not disputing it so much, but for whoever mentioned him, where's the evidence? What is the impact and measure of his success that you put him in this club?
Oh, and 1 more question: someone said Gorillaz. I love me some Gorillaz. But same question, I don't see AT ALL the vast impact they've had, what is the trail of their impact on other scenes? Do you think they defined their own scene and if so,w hat scene is that? (Other than cartoon bands where they project the cartoon live and band plays in the dark - I've seen both Gorillaz and Dethklok play that way, and it's awesome, but hardly something we're even still talking about 8 yrs later, much less will be talking about in 20 or 30 more years....
I'm skeptical of most these artists being hugely remembered. The examples listed in the post header are artists that I think you could ask over 80% of the adult population and they would know who they were. I don't think even right know you could say that a lot of the bands/artists being named are known by 50%. Those referenced musicians in the thread title are ingrained in the industry, much like a Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson were during the 80's and everyone knew their name and still does.
I completely agree with you. Aside from maybe White Stripes/Jack White, and no one so far has mentioned Kendrick Lamar, Radiohead or Jeff Buckley so I'll add them. But other than that, I don't see any of the bands mentioned so far as being "Genre-shifting" or "genre-defining".
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences. 2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes. 3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
I think no one mentioned Radiohead or Buckley because they came out prior to 2000 like the OP stated. You're absolutely right though, they'll go down as timeless. I think Radiohead is right there with Pearl Jam. Sure they have more critically acclaimed albums over the years, but Pearl Jam had a bigger cultural impact. And Kendrick could definitely be a legend if he keeps going. That guy has his finger on the pulse of America better than anyone right now.
I'm skeptical of most these artists being hugely remembered. The examples listed in the post header are artists that I think you could ask over 80% of the adult population and they would know who they were. I don't think even right know you could say that a lot of the bands/artists being named are known by 50%. Those referenced musicians in the thread title are ingrained in the industry, much like a Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson were during the 80's and everyone knew their name and still does.
I completely agree with you. Aside from maybe White Stripes/Jack White, and no one so far has mentioned Kendrick Lamar, Radiohead or Jeff Buckley so I'll add them. But other than that, I don't see any of the bands mentioned so far as being "Genre-shifting" or "genre-defining".
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences. 2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes. 3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
I mean, we won't see the fruits of any influence for at least another 20 years. I do think there is a clear way to tell. The reason why you see more immediate influence of artists from the 60s and 70s is because the work was still new and revelatory.
You hear more artists now citing the work of Eno, or Gil Scott Heron or whoever, who weren't massive, but that their work grew in influence over the decades.
As for Kanye, his critically acclaimed albums have set the tone for a lot of modern hip hop. And it more in the sound than the lyrical content. Again, we won't know for sure for another 10-15 years. But the threads are there (massively critically acclaimed albums). The biggest star in hip hop now, Chance the Rapper, heavily cites Kanye as changing his worldview and sound. And you an hear it in his production (though to be fair, Kanye started by doing his own production, Chance collaborates closely with producers).
I can't help but feel this thread is a setup for the commentary that music today will not be as influential as the music from the 60s-90s, that a sizable portion of the board favors.
Linkin Park. They were big. So big Jay-Z made an album with them. They are making another album and people will listen.
Brian I am a firm believer that we are on the verge of a rock revival. Every 30 years or so we had a HUGE rock upheaval where it actually changed the landscape. I do believe this is happening.
You Have Ty Seagall and Thee Oh Sees bringing some very good music out there. The Weeks are another fun band. Hell even Ed Sheeran is making some good music!
Oh right, Ed Sheeran. Yeah, I think he'll be one of them for sure. I like him as well. Some of his stuff isn't my thing because it's too poppy but some of it is up my alley, he's super famous and well-loved, has a good relationship with a lot of other musicians and collaborates, is really fantastic live (really that is when I like his music lot), and appeals to different age groups. And he's young yet. I am looking forward to him maturing a bit and seeing what he does down the road.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Oh, and 1 more question: someone said Gorillaz. I love me some Gorillaz. But same question, I don't see AT ALL the vast impact they've had, what is the trail of their impact on other scenes? Do you think they defined their own scene and if so,w hat scene is that? (Other than cartoon bands where they project the cartoon live and band plays in the dark - I've seen both Gorillaz and Dethklok play that way, and it's awesome, but hardly something we're even still talking about 8 yrs later, much less will be talking about in 20 or 30 more years....
So why Gorillaz?
I said Gorillaz because I think that in 45 years there will still be people discovering their music and buying their albums (assuming that is a thing in 45 years, lol). Plus they have had some megahit songs that are already starting to prove their longevity.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the question though. 45 years from now a current band that is still revered by music fans would be like the present day... what? Some are alluding to Michael Jackson, and I'm sure the Beatles come to mind, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Madonna, Etc, which is fair because they are ULTRA famous and are more ubiquitous in society. But are people aware of how many younger people today have no clue who massive bands of the past even are? There are TONS of younger people (and some older people) who don't know who The Clash, The Ramones, Pearl Jam, Guns N' Roses, RHCP, Rush, or Chuck Berry even are, or, if they do, couldn't care less. That doesn't mean that those artists don't have a lasting legacy, right? I figure 45 years from now there will be huge circles of music fans who will indeed know many of the bands listed in this thread, will probably create threads about them on message boards and geek over the latest analog reissue (i wonder what format will excite them in 2062??), and talk about how they're legends. And that there will be big artists who say their influences include bands like My Morning Jacket, Gorillaz, Jack White, QOTSA, etc. The music will play on classic rock and oldies stations. Meanwhile, the majority of people under the age of 30 will have no clue who any of them are, just like the majority of people under 30 now have 100% zero interest in or even knowledge of many of the old bands we all consider to have lasting power in pop culture. If the question is, "which post-2000 artists will be as famous and ubiquitous as artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna, and The Beatles 45 years from now?", my answers would be different.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think all of the artists that have been mentioned will be remembered in some capacity, but where it gets complicated is how huge they'll be remembered and obviously by how many people. All of us are big music fans and therefore have a more diverse knowledge of the past lesser known legends who played a part in shaping all the bands we love. I mean, look at the bands Ed has referenced as influential to him. They are not known at all for the most part, which is what I think separates influential from culturally popular.
Unfortunately, I think I've passed the point of having a pulse on new and culturally popular music because of my age. Let's face it, one of our favorite bands of all time was once considered the bad angry music by our parents and the larger adult population, the same way Elvis' sexually charged hip gyrating was controversial and The Beatles music was considered counterculture.
I doubt many people know who Charlie Parker or John Coltrane are these days, but they were amazing artists with timeless music and an immense influence.
Oh, and 1 more question: someone said Gorillaz. I love me some Gorillaz. But same question, I don't see AT ALL the vast impact they've had, what is the trail of their impact on other scenes? Do you think they defined their own scene and if so,w hat scene is that? (Other than cartoon bands where they project the cartoon live and band plays in the dark - I've seen both Gorillaz and Dethklok play that way, and it's awesome, but hardly something we're even still talking about 8 yrs later, much less will be talking about in 20 or 30 more years....
So why Gorillaz?
I said Gorillaz because I think that in 45 years there will still be people discovering their music and buying their albums (assuming that is a thing in 45 years, lol). Plus they have had some megahit songs that are already starting to prove their longevity.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the question though. 45 years from now a current band that is still revered by music fans would be like the present day... what? Some are alluding to Michael Jackson, and I'm sure the Beatles come to mind, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Madonna, Etc, which is fair because they are ULTRA famous and are more ubiquitous in society. But are people aware of how many younger people today have no clue who massive bands of the past even are? There are TONS of younger people (and some older people) who don't know who The Clash, The Ramones, Pearl Jam, Guns N' Roses, RHCP, Rush, or Chuck Berry even are, or, if they do, couldn't care less. That doesn't mean that those artists don't have a lasting legacy, right? I figure 45 years from now there will be huge circles of music fans who will indeed know many of the bands listed in this thread, will probably create threads about them on message boards and geek over the latest analog reissue (i wonder what format will excite them in 2062??), and talk about how they're legends. And that there will be big artists who say their influences include bands like My Morning Jacket, Gorillaz, Jack White, QOTSA, etc. The music will play on classic rock and oldies stations. Meanwhile, the majority of people under the age of 30 will have no clue who any of them are, just like the majority of people under 30 now have 100% zero interest in or even knowledge of many of the old bands we all consider to have lasting power in pop culture. If the question is, "which post-2000 artists will be as famous and ubiquitous as artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna, and The Beatles 45 years from now?", my answers would be different.
I guess Brianlux should answer what he means, but to me it is a different question from both the questions you ask. It's not about whether *anyone* will know of them or cite them as influences - there are all sorts of obscure bands from the past that come up when someone says they impacted them, but that doesn't make those bands "genre-defining" or "genre-impacting".
I guess for me, that's the standard or criteria: in 20 years which bands from 2000-2017 will people in 2037 be saying "They changed the course of music" or "They impacted/inspired all these currently massively successful bands of present day 2037 by being so amazing back in 2010".
It's not just about commercial success. You mention Ed Sheerhan... maybe I'm just an old jaded person but while I absolutely get the fact that he's a great songwriter, very entertaining live, and a bazillioin people love him, I cannot find a SINGLE THING about his music that makes an impression. Catchy songs: check. Genre defining? How? There are countless singer-songwriter-y guys singing about various aspects of love and relationships. What about his brand of that means anyone will know of him beyond the "2010's hits radio station" of the future (the equivalent of stations that play the best of 80s and 90s music now). Maybe a few singles of his will still be around, but what about him makes it seem like he'll shape music or change the course of a genre?
I dunno, for me it's gotta be that those having a major impact on music now cite the older artsts as major influences, or that in 15-25 yrs we'll see how the artists of today changed somethiing, had a huge impact. Like I think Beyonce beeing talented is unquestionable, whether I like her stuff or not. One thing she's changed or at leasts impacted about the music business is the whole "recording and releasing an entire album, complete with videos for every song, all at once with zero advance notice" which is now starting to be "a thing" for artists. If you can just drop the entire thing out of the blue, it's newsworthy and if it charts, that's all so diifferent from the old school "release a single, with lots of fanfare, then the album, then tour, then more singles..." So one could say that has changed an aspect of the industry or introduced a new aspect. If it's a trend that grows, then Beyonce (or whoever did it first) will have impacted a genre or the entire business.
Which bands of today are likely to have THAT kind of impact, and why do you think they will (question for everyone)?
I had to look up who Jeff Buckley was. Never heard of him, don't remember him...
That's totally understandable. But the question is, is the fact that you'v'e never heard of him mean he's not genre-defining? Do you know how many of the bands we're talking about as possibly being the "It Bands" in 20 yrs were influenced by Buckley? Radiohead, Jeff Ament (so his part of Pearl Jam), I don't know, I'd have to go and really think about it to make a list. It's less whether 90% of Millenials know who it is, and more whether the genre-definers of today consider these bands of the past genre-defining for them, hugely inspirational.
Someone above said a lot of people don't know who the Clash were. But have they heard of U2? U2 says without the Clash, they wouldn't exist. Same for Rage Against the Machine, who some would include in a list of genre-defining artists. THAT's the kind of influence the Beatles and Stones and James Brown and Public Enemy had (yes, Public Enemy. Talk about genre-defining, there is no questison, no matter what you think of their music).
Likewise, in 20 yrs it will probably turn out that some artist around today is one of these amazing, music-changing artists. And if you said her/his/their name right now, there's a GREAT chance I'd never heard of them right now. But that doesn't mean they aren't out ther,e amazing, breaking all sorts of molds, and about to inspire the next generation of amazing artists.
I had to look up who Jeff Buckley was. Never heard of him, don't remember him...
And as an admittedly biased aside, seeing Jeff Buckley live is about as close as I ever expect to get to seeing an artist become a vessel for divine energy and just CHANNEL like a blinding bit of sun-like energy live. He was that fucking incredible live, voice, music, energy, everything. He changed so much for so many. I'm seriously not being religious here, but it was like living a religious experience, or witnessing one.
I'm skeptical of most these artists being hugely remembered. The examples listed in the post header are artists that I think you could ask over 80% of the adult population and they would know who they were. I don't think even right know you could say that a lot of the bands/artists being named are known by 50%. Those referenced musicians in the thread title are ingrained in the industry, much like a Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson were during the 80's and everyone knew their name and still does.
I completely agree with you. Aside from maybe White Stripes/Jack White, and no one so far has mentioned Kendrick Lamar, Radiohead or Jeff Buckley so I'll add them. But other than that, I don't see any of the bands mentioned so far as being "Genre-shifting" or "genre-defining".
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences. 2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes. 3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
An excellent post JH! I think your three parameters for what constitutes an epic band or artist are spot on.
To further illustrate why some of the bands listed in this thread so far do not meet those criteria, there are a number of bands that I would like to see on such a list but cannot be placed on such a list even though in my own opinion they are epic, here are just a few names that I doubt even 50% of folks would not recognize:
In Rock Dinosaur Jr. Mission of Burma Minutemen Fugazi
I'm skeptical of most these artists being hugely remembered. The examples listed in the post header are artists that I think you could ask over 80% of the adult population and they would know who they were. I don't think even right know you could say that a lot of the bands/artists being named are known by 50%. Those referenced musicians in the thread title are ingrained in the industry, much like a Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson were during the 80's and everyone knew their name and still does.
I completely agree with you. Aside from maybe White Stripes/Jack White, and no one so far has mentioned Kendrick Lamar, Radiohead or Jeff Buckley so I'll add them. But other than that, I don't see any of the bands mentioned so far as being "Genre-shifting" or "genre-defining".
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences. 2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes. 3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
I mean, we won't see the fruits of any influence for at least another 20 years. I do think there is a clear way to tell. The reason why you see more immediate influence of artists from the 60s and 70s is because the work was still new and revelatory.
You hear more artists now citing the work of Eno, or Gil Scott Heron or whoever, who weren't massive, but that their work grew in influence over the decades.
As for Kanye, his critically acclaimed albums have set the tone for a lot of modern hip hop. And it more in the sound than the lyrical content. Again, we won't know for sure for another 10-15 years. But the threads are there (massively critically acclaimed albums). The biggest star in hip hop now, Chance the Rapper, heavily cites Kanye as changing his worldview and sound. And you an hear it in his production (though to be fair, Kanye started by doing his own production, Chance collaborates closely with producers).
I can't help but feel this thread is a setup for the commentary that music today will not be as influential as the music from the 60s-90s, that a sizable portion of the board favors.
Tim, I'm not sure if you mean that I intentionally made this thread a set up to disparage recent music but I assure you I did not. That's just not my style, especially when it comes to the sacred topic of music. You will get no bullshit from me on this subject, only sincere and forthright comments. The question from the outset was sincere and I believe I did state or at least allude to the fact that I am excited about the continued possibility of seeing great artists with widespread recognition as a factor (many supremely talented artist like my beloved Replacements and Dinosaur Jr or some of your favorites sadly do not make that list) will emergemerge.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Oh, and 1 more question: someone said Gorillaz. I love me some Gorillaz. But same question, I don't see AT ALL the vast impact they've had, what is the trail of their impact on other scenes? Do you think they defined their own scene and if so,w hat scene is that? (Other than cartoon bands where they project the cartoon live and band plays in the dark - I've seen both Gorillaz and Dethklok play that way, and it's awesome, but hardly something we're even still talking about 8 yrs later, much less will be talking about in 20 or 30 more years....
So why Gorillaz?
I said Gorillaz because I think that in 45 years there will still be people discovering their music and buying their albums (assuming that is a thing in 45 years, lol). Plus they have had some megahit songs that are already starting to prove their longevity.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the question though. 45 years from now a current band that is still revered by music fans would be like the present day... what? Some are alluding to Michael Jackson, and I'm sure the Beatles come to mind, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Madonna, Etc, which is fair because they are ULTRA famous and are more ubiquitous in society. But are people aware of how many younger people today have no clue who massive bands of the past even are? There are TONS of younger people (and some older people) who don't know who The Clash, The Ramones, Pearl Jam, Guns N' Roses, RHCP, Rush, or Chuck Berry even are, or, if they do, couldn't care less. That doesn't mean that those artists don't have a lasting legacy, right? I figure 45 years from now there will be huge circles of music fans who will indeed know many of the bands listed in this thread, will probably create threads about them on message boards and geek over the latest analog reissue (i wonder what format will excite them in 2062??), and talk about how they're legends. And that there will be big artists who say their influences include bands like My Morning Jacket, Gorillaz, Jack White, QOTSA, etc. The music will play on classic rock and oldies stations. Meanwhile, the majority of people under the age of 30 will have no clue who any of them are, just like the majority of people under 30 now have 100% zero interest in or even knowledge of many of the old bands we all consider to have lasting power in pop culture. If the question is, "which post-2000 artists will be as famous and ubiquitous as artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna, and The Beatles 45 years from now?", my answers would be different.
If they don't know Chuck Berry they need to be either spanked or sent back to school!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm skeptical of most these artists being hugely remembered. The examples listed in the post header are artists that I think you could ask over 80% of the adult population and they would know who they were. I don't think even right know you could say that a lot of the bands/artists being named are known by 50%. Those referenced musicians in the thread title are ingrained in the industry, much like a Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson were during the 80's and everyone knew their name and still does.
I completely agree with you. Aside from maybe White Stripes/Jack White, and no one so far has mentioned Kendrick Lamar, Radiohead or Jeff Buckley so I'll add them. But other than that, I don't see any of the bands mentioned so far as being "Genre-shifting" or "genre-defining".
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences. 2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes. 3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
An excellent post JH! I think your three parameters for what constitutes an epic band or artist are spot on.
To further illustrate why some of the bands listed in this thread so far do not meet those criteria, there are a number of bands that I would like to see on such a list but cannot be placed on such a list even though in my own opinion they are epic, here are just a few names that I doubt even 50% of folks would not recognize:
In Rock Dinosaur Jr. Mission of Burma Minutemen Fugazi
I'm skeptical of most these artists being hugely remembered. The examples listed in the post header are artists that I think you could ask over 80% of the adult population and they would know who they were. I don't think even right know you could say that a lot of the bands/artists being named are known by 50%. Those referenced musicians in the thread title are ingrained in the industry, much like a Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson were during the 80's and everyone knew their name and still does.
I completely agree with you. Aside from maybe White Stripes/Jack White, and no one so far has mentioned Kendrick Lamar, Radiohead or Jeff Buckley so I'll add them. But other than that, I don't see any of the bands mentioned so far as being "Genre-shifting" or "genre-defining".
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences. 2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes. 3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
I mean, we won't see the fruits of any influence for at least another 20 years. I do think there is a clear way to tell. The reason why you see more immediate influence of artists from the 60s and 70s is because the work was still new and revelatory.
You hear more artists now citing the work of Eno, or Gil Scott Heron or whoever, who weren't massive, but that their work grew in influence over the decades.
As for Kanye, his critically acclaimed albums have set the tone for a lot of modern hip hop. And it more in the sound than the lyrical content. Again, we won't know for sure for another 10-15 years. But the threads are there (massively critically acclaimed albums). The biggest star in hip hop now, Chance the Rapper, heavily cites Kanye as changing his worldview and sound. And you an hear it in his production (though to be fair, Kanye started by doing his own production, Chance collaborates closely with producers).
I can't help but feel this thread is a setup for the commentary that music today will not be as influential as the music from the 60s-90s, that a sizable portion of the board favors.
Tim, I'm not sure if you mean that I intentionally made this thread a set up to disparage recent music but I assure you I did not. That's just not my style, especially when it comes to the sacred topic of music. You will get no bullshit from me on this subject, only sincere and forthright comments. The question from the outset was sincere and I believe I did state or at least allude to the fact that I am excited about the continued possibility of seeing great artists with widespread recognition as a factor (many supremely talented artist like my beloved Replacements and Dinosaur Jr or some of your favorites sadly do not make that list) will emergemerge.
We're on same page then! ::ThumbsUp::
Btw, crazy that you included Dinosaur Jr on your list - even though I saw them way back when, I never listened to them much. My husband is in a total "24/7 Dinosaur Jr Phase" right now, and I am BLOWN AWAY by how much it sounds like they influenced other bands that I adore, like Afghan Whigs and a few others. So talented! I agree totally on them!
So, since Brian has blessed the definition of "epic & influential" for this generation, does anyone who's totally up on current music have anyone they'd throw up as being lauded as super-influential or genre-defining in 20 yrs? Chance the Rapper? Fantastic Negrito? Hurray for the Riff Raff?
I'm skeptical of most these artists being hugely remembered. The examples listed in the post header are artists that I think you could ask over 80% of the adult population and they would know who they were. I don't think even right know you could say that a lot of the bands/artists being named are known by 50%. Those referenced musicians in the thread title are ingrained in the industry, much like a Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson were during the 80's and everyone knew their name and still does.
I completely agree with you. Aside from maybe White Stripes/Jack White, and no one so far has mentioned Kendrick Lamar, Radiohead or Jeff Buckley so I'll add them. But other than that, I don't see any of the bands mentioned so far as being "Genre-shifting" or "genre-defining".
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences. 2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes. 3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
An excellent post JH! I think your three parameters for what constitutes an epic band or artist are spot on.
To further illustrate why some of the bands listed in this thread so far do not meet those criteria, there are a number of bands that I would like to see on such a list but cannot be placed on such a list even though in my own opinion they are epic, here are just a few names that I doubt even 50% of folks would not recognize:
In Rock Dinosaur Jr. Mission of Burma Minutemen Fugazi
I'm skeptical of most these artists being hugely remembered. The examples listed in the post header are artists that I think you could ask over 80% of the adult population and they would know who they were. I don't think even right know you could say that a lot of the bands/artists being named are known by 50%. Those referenced musicians in the thread title are ingrained in the industry, much like a Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson were during the 80's and everyone knew their name and still does.
I completely agree with you. Aside from maybe White Stripes/Jack White, and no one so far has mentioned Kendrick Lamar, Radiohead or Jeff Buckley so I'll add them. But other than that, I don't see any of the bands mentioned so far as being "Genre-shifting" or "genre-defining".
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences. 2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes. 3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
I mean, we won't see the fruits of any influence for at least another 20 years. I do think there is a clear way to tell. The reason why you see more immediate influence of artists from the 60s and 70s is because the work was still new and revelatory.
You hear more artists now citing the work of Eno, or Gil Scott Heron or whoever, who weren't massive, but that their work grew in influence over the decades.
As for Kanye, his critically acclaimed albums have set the tone for a lot of modern hip hop. And it more in the sound than the lyrical content. Again, we won't know for sure for another 10-15 years. But the threads are there (massively critically acclaimed albums). The biggest star in hip hop now, Chance the Rapper, heavily cites Kanye as changing his worldview and sound. And you an hear it in his production (though to be fair, Kanye started by doing his own production, Chance collaborates closely with producers).
I can't help but feel this thread is a setup for the commentary that music today will not be as influential as the music from the 60s-90s, that a sizable portion of the board favors.
Tim, I'm not sure if you mean that I intentionally made this thread a set up to disparage recent music but I assure you I did not. That's just not my style, especially when it comes to the sacred topic of music. You will get no bullshit from me on this subject, only sincere and forthright comments. The question from the outset was sincere and I believe I did state or at least allude to the fact that I am excited about the continued possibility of seeing great artists with widespread recognition as a factor (many supremely talented artist like my beloved Replacements and Dinosaur Jr or some of your favorites sadly do not make that list) will emergemerge.
We're on same page then! ::ThumbsUp::
Btw, crazy that you included Dinosaur Jr on your list - even though I saw them way back when, I never listened to them much. My husband is in a total "24/7 Dinosaur Jr Phase" right now, and I am BLOWN AWAY by how much it sounds like they influenced other bands that I adore, like Afghan Whigs and a few others. So talented! I agree totally on them!
So, since Brian has blessed the definition of "epic & influential" for this generation, does anyone who's totally up on current music have anyone they'd throw up as being lauded as super-influential or genre-defining in 20 yrs? Chance the Rapper? Fantastic Negrito? Hurray for the Riff Raff?
Anyone?
I'd say (for post 2000 artists) Kanye West Drake Beyoncé Taylor Swift Arcade Fire
Big Potential: The National Bon Iver Kendrick Lamar Adele Coldplay
But since yesterday I've thought about this a bit more. I do think the changes that the whole industry have undergone over the past 20 years couple with how differently people listen to music now, could lead to a wider array of influential artists, but maybe they may not be stadium multi platinum sized that they were in the 60s-90s. Just because bands aren't that big anymore.
But since yesterday I've thought about this a bit more. I do think the changes that the whole industry have undergone over the past 20 years couple with how differently people listen to music now, could lead to a wider array of influential artists, but maybe they may not be stadium multi platinum sized that they were in the 60s-90s. Just because bands aren't that big anymore.
While The Stones, the Beatles, and Led Zep would have played stadiums and sold multi-platinum, most of the bands now considered "genre-creating" or "hugely influential" weren't even selling out arena-sized places or selling platinum at all when they were in their primes. The music was just so good, it may have been known/appreciated by a much smaller group but that group was inspired to their own greatness because of how amazing the earlier bands were.
Blues artists largely cited by Stones/Led Zep/Jimi Hendrix, many of them died in poverty and never played even huge theaters before they died. But their music was transformative.
So yes, music and how it is delivered and how we "consume" it has evolved and keeps evolving, but so many of the most pivotal bands were not platinum/stadium bands ever, so that doesn't have to be an old or new criteria.
Spice Girls and Britney Spears and Hannah Montana set many record sales and concert ticket sales records in their primes. I don't think anyone's claiming them in the "Most influential in 20 yrs" category...
So Tim, how does your list change (if at all) if you assume being a multi-platinum seller or playing stadiums is definitely *not* criteria for this? Just somehow being recognized by enough of your peers and maybe critics as cutting edge but also classic/incredible? Or you just think they're that talented and defining their own corner of a genre in a way that will last?
So Tim, how does your list change (if at all) if you assume being a multi-platinum seller or playing stadiums is definitely *not* criteria for this? Just somehow being recognized by enough of your peers and maybe critics as cutting edge but also classic/incredible? Or you just think they're that talented and defining their own corner of a genre in a way that will last?
I don't think my list would be terribly different. I think that "Big potential" portion would be blown out. I think there would be a ton of Americana, indie rock, and electronic acts that would fill that out. I think of all these acts that fill large theaters or headline smaller festivals for a couple of album cycles. People show up to that stuff and it will inevitably be a touchstone for some people who may go on to do something else.
I think peer/critical admiration is as big of a driver as sales/popularity.
I also think something else to consider is the way we hold a lot of the 60s/70s/80s artists still in the highest regard. The reason is many of them are still producing material, so we are subjected to a promotion cycle that's driven (pourposly in most cases) by nostalgia. I know the new Stones album got decent reviews. But let's be honest, outside of the hardest core fans, most people just want to see a show and hear the hits.
There will be a point, where the demand for reissues of this material, or tapping the vaults for something, will be at its barebones because the band isn't around to sustain it for a promotional cycle, or, even worse (?), its hardest core fans who were around for its most viable years aren't around anymore.
I mean, once baby boomers start dying out at quicker pace, there won't be as much demand for these 60s/70s reissues/deluxe/whatever to keep the catalog fresh in people's minds. So I think that feeds everyone's perception of these "classic" acts and their influence.
So what I've been dancing around, if you wait another 15-20 years, you will see the industry mining the catalogs and careers of bands that Gen X/Y hold in higher regard and you'll see who the most influential of the era are.
Great topic Brian! I've been thinking a lot about music along these lines recently. My love of music started with my dad's record collection - Cream, Stones, Beatles, Neil/CSNY, Hendrix, the usual suspects. I'm 40 now and my son is about to turn 3; I find myself wondering what he'll be listening to in 12 years time (he'll be 15, the age I discovered Sonic Youth), or when he gets to 40...
As much as I would love for him to be listening to Ryan Adams or Joseph Arthur in years to come - or even Pearl Jam for that matter - it's probably unlikely (unless he's rummaging through my 'old' records!)
As people have mentioned previously, the industry has changed and the way that music is made, marketed and consumed has changed. TV talent shows, and streaming/downloading mean that this year's Next Big Thing is often forgotten about by next year. Even The Beatles would struggle to be anything more than just another boy band these days.
There have certainly been game changers within genres, although not necessarily since 2000. John Frusciante is the first that springs to mind for me; Radiohead, Jack Rose, DJ Shadow, even Eminem, have all brought something new to their fields. I guess Beyoncé, Kendrick or Jack White (more for Third Man than for his solo music) would be more relevant examples to the original post. I can't think of many others.
It's an interesting time for sure. There will be another music revolution, the talent show crap can't last forever! Maybe the most influential artist since 2000 is yet to be discovered. Maybe that guy with the beat up old acoustic in your local bar is the next Dylan. Maybe it really is going to be Bieber! Either way, it'll be fun finding out...
“Do not postpone happiness”
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
I also think something else to consider is the way we hold a lot of the 60s/70s/80s artists still in the highest regard. The reason is many of them are still producing material, so we are subjected to a promotion cycle that's driven (pourposly in most cases) by nostalgia. I know the new Stones album got decent reviews. But let's be honest, outside of the hardest core fans, most people just want to see a show and hear the hits.
There will be a point, where the demand for reissues of this material, or tapping the vaults for something, will be at its barebones because the band isn't around to sustain it for a promotional cycle, or, even worse (?), its hardest core fans who were around for its most viable years aren't around anymore.
I mean, once baby boomers start dying out at quicker pace, there won't be as much demand for these 60s/70s reissues/deluxe/whatever to keep the catalog fresh in people's minds. So I think that feeds everyone's perception of these "classic" acts and their influence.
So what I've been dancing around, if you wait another 15-20 years, you will see the industry mining the catalogs and careers of bands that Gen X/Y hold in higher regard and you'll see who the most influential of the era are.
Hey, Tim, watch what you say about us baby boomers dying off more quickly!
Good point about the promotion cycle although I do believe many of those 60's bands were already legends in their time and I just don't see them fading into obscurity. For example, Robert Johnson, long dead now, is revered as much as ever for his contributions to blues music and is probably appreciated more now than in his life time.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Great topic Brian! I've been thinking a lot about music along these lines recently. My love of music started with my dad's record collection - Cream, Stones, Beatles, Neil/CSNY, Hendrix, the usual suspects. I'm 40 now and my son is about to turn 3; I find myself wondering what he'll be listening to in 12 years time (he'll be 15, the age I discovered Sonic Youth), or when he gets to 40...
As much as I would love for him to be listening to Ryan Adams or Joseph Arthur in years to come - or even Pearl Jam for that matter - it's probably unlikely (unless he's rummaging through my 'old' records!)
As people have mentioned previously, the industry has changed and the way that music is made, marketed and consumed has changed. TV talent shows, and streaming/downloading mean that this year's Next Big Thing is often forgotten about by next year. Even The Beatles would struggle to be anything more than just another boy band these days.
There have certainly been game changers within genres, although not necessarily since 2000. John Frusciante is the first that springs to mind for me; Radiohead, Jack Rose, DJ Shadow, even Eminem, have all brought something new to their fields. I guess Beyoncé, Kendrick or Jack White (more for Third Man than for his solo music) would be more relevant examples to the original post. I can't think of many others.
It's an interesting time for sure. There will be another music revolution, the talent show crap can't last forever! Maybe the most influential artist since 2000 is yet to be discovered. Maybe that guy with the beat up old acoustic in your local bar is the next Dylan. Maybe it really is going to be Bieber! Either way, it'll be fun finding out...
Excellent post here, goldrush. Sometimes music fades away for good, sometimes just for a while. I do think things tend to cycle. I remember when big band music really died off with my parent's generation (G.I. generation, all but gone although my old man is still around at 96!) but then my daughter-in-law's generation started to bring it back. She and her friends are into stuff like Glen Miller and earlier Frank Sinatra. So maybe your son,s kids will pull out grandpas old copy of "Fresh Cream" and rock out!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Great thread thank you! As I am reading through it I keep thinking about how in the beginning (back in 1955!) of modern music, and then for decades, there was only a certain few ways to consume music. I'm only 40 and what I remember as a high schooler was listening to the radio, going to the record store or Best Buy, or watching MTV. That was it. So pretty much the media decided for me what I consumed. Lucky for us 40 year olds some of it was pretty good! And for most the high school years are pretty important in developing taste in music.
Kids now I think have so many more ways to consume/discover music. I think about how if you graduated high school in 1990 you had heard "Sweet Child of Mine" a million times. In 10 years (or even now maybe) there might not be a song that every high schooler has heard a million times or even one time. They may each be consuming very different music from very different sources.
I also think about how the first people to do something are usually the ones we remember the most. I think going forward it will be harder and harder for artists to break into the "timeless/will be remembered by many forever" category because it is already a crowded category with a 70 year plus history for modern music. It will be possible, but the ones that do it will be fewer and farther between IMO. But who the hell knows? Like someone already said - it will be fun to find out!
Great thread thank you! As I am reading through it I keep thinking about how in the beginning (back in 1955!) of modern music, and then for decades, there was only a certain few ways to consume music. I'm only 40 and what I remember as a high schooler was listening to the radio, going to the record store or Best Buy, or watching MTV. That was it. So pretty much the media decided for me what I consumed. Lucky for us 40 year olds some of it was pretty good! And for most the high school years are pretty important in developing taste in music.
Kids now I think have so many more ways to consume/discover music. I think about how if you graduated high school in 1990 you had heard "Sweet Child of Mine" a million times. In 10 years (or even now maybe) there might not be a song that every high schooler has heard a million times or even one time. They may each be consuming very different music from very different sources.
I also think about how the first people to do something are usually the ones we remember the most. I think going forward it will be harder and harder for artists to break into the "timeless/will be remembered by many forever" category because it is already a crowded category with a 70 year plus history for modern music. It will be possible, but the ones that do it will be fewer and farther between IMO. But who the hell knows? Like someone already said - it will be fun to find out!
Well said, simmers!
The idea that modern music has peaked has intrigued me for a number of years. It's also led me to wondering what will come next. My folks listened to crooners and swing. My generation has been into rock and roll (and blues and jazz for some). The next generations got into hip hop, electronica, noise and a plethora of cross-over genres. And all of those categories are aging as well. So what next? Or have we exhausted to possibilities? Is there something on the horizon we have yet to hear? I hope so, but I have no idea what it would be.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
Maybe a key piece we missed Brianlux when we started the convo was defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic, transformative artist in 20 yrs, what does that look like right now if those bands are headed that way?
To me it's got to start with even if people don't all agree or like what they produce, there's a general agreement that it's innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture. We know Nina Simone, Elvis, the Beatles, Hendrix, the Stones, Led Zep, Aretha Franklin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, Al Green, and James Brown all had those impacts.
1. Artists today are STILL citing them as influences.
2. We can point to places where you can almost "see" the trail of impact their music and ways of performing influenced other bands and scenes.
3. There is still no disagreement about their impact and value.
I would argue that Kendrick Lamar (still early days for him), but definitely also Jeff Buckley and Radiohead have already had those impacts and will likely stand up tot he test of time. And Buckley only had one finished album and most of the meat of a 2nd, but those albums and his live shows show he deserved every accolade he got, even if you don't like his music.
Which of the bands named so far in this thread have even the seeds of any of that? Even Adele, I agree she's super talented, but her music is already derivative, there were other singers who sounded like her right before she came out, and I actually LOVE what I know about her but where are the clues to her long-term impact on music that makes anyone include her in this list? What do you think they'll be saying about her in 20 yrs and why?
I do think that because the "traditional routes to mass fame" (appearing on less than 15 music t.v. shows in US and Europe), articles in less than 25 magazines in US and Europe (but that were read around the world, like Melody Maker and Rolling Stone), and of course mainstream radio airplay... all of those things have changed so much, the only 2 standard measures we still had that were in effect way back when are the airplay/sales charts like Billboard, and live concert ticket sales. Other than that, hasn't everything else about how to measure success changed?
But that doesn't mean therre aren't still standouts. I remember when REM hit that peak of fame, and I would say more than anything else the thing that kept them rising was that they were incredible live and their albums often had very few dud songs on them, so what was not to love? And also that THEY as a band kept pushing themselves, working with a handful of producers (which can be a blessing or a curse sometiems but worked mostly for them), and just pushing themsleves to do new things, play new instruments, ciruclate songwriting... all that keeps the innovations coming. And of course being driven in your writing by current events and what you care about.
I listen to a song like "World Leader Pretend" and I still am on the verge of tears, that song is so masterful, and good lawd with today's politics... anyway... their work is literally very rooted in a time period in some ways, and timeLESS in others. Isn't that a key ingredient to lasting recognition?
I'd like to hear more about how Kanye is one of these artists. I know he's talented, but where is the trail of imact that you see already? I feel like I can point ot more artists and scenes influenced by Jay-Z than I can Kanye. I'm not disputing it so much, but for whoever mentioned him, where's the evidence? What is the impact and measure of his success that you put him in this club?
So why Gorillaz?
And Kendrick could definitely be a legend if he keeps going. That guy has his finger on the pulse of America better than anyone right now.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I mean, we won't see the fruits of any influence for at least another 20 years. I do think there is a clear way to tell. The reason why you see more immediate influence of artists from the 60s and 70s is because the work was still new and revelatory.
You hear more artists now citing the work of Eno, or Gil Scott Heron or whoever, who weren't massive, but that their work grew in influence over the decades.
As for Kanye, his critically acclaimed albums have set the tone for a lot of modern hip hop. And it more in the sound than the lyrical content. Again, we won't know for sure for another 10-15 years. But the threads are there (massively critically acclaimed albums). The biggest star in hip hop now, Chance the Rapper, heavily cites Kanye as changing his worldview and sound. And you an hear it in his production (though to be fair, Kanye started by doing his own production, Chance collaborates closely with producers).
I can't help but feel this thread is a setup for the commentary that music today will not be as influential as the music from the 60s-90s, that a sizable portion of the board favors.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the question though. 45 years from now a current band that is still revered by music fans would be like the present day... what? Some are alluding to Michael Jackson, and I'm sure the Beatles come to mind, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Madonna, Etc, which is fair because they are ULTRA famous and are more ubiquitous in society. But are people aware of how many younger people today have no clue who massive bands of the past even are? There are TONS of younger people (and some older people) who don't know who The Clash, The Ramones, Pearl Jam, Guns N' Roses, RHCP, Rush, or Chuck Berry even are, or, if they do, couldn't care less. That doesn't mean that those artists don't have a lasting legacy, right? I figure 45 years from now there will be huge circles of music fans who will indeed know many of the bands listed in this thread, will probably create threads about them on message boards and geek over the latest analog reissue (i wonder what format will excite them in 2062??), and talk about how they're legends. And that there will be big artists who say their influences include bands like My Morning Jacket, Gorillaz, Jack White, QOTSA, etc. The music will play on classic rock and oldies stations. Meanwhile, the majority of people under the age of 30 will have no clue who any of them are, just like the majority of people under 30 now have 100% zero interest in or even knowledge of many of the old bands we all consider to have lasting power in pop culture.
If the question is, "which post-2000 artists will be as famous and ubiquitous as artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna, and The Beatles 45 years from now?", my answers would be different.
Unfortunately, I think I've passed the point of having a pulse on new and culturally popular music because of my age. Let's face it, one of our favorite bands of all time was once considered the bad angry music by our parents and the larger adult population, the same way Elvis' sexually charged hip gyrating was controversial and The Beatles music was considered counterculture.
I doubt many people know who Charlie Parker or John Coltrane are these days, but they were amazing artists with timeless music and an immense influence.
I guess for me, that's the standard or criteria: in 20 years which bands from 2000-2017 will people in 2037 be saying "They changed the course of music" or "They impacted/inspired all these currently massively successful bands of present day 2037 by being so amazing back in 2010".
It's not just about commercial success. You mention Ed Sheerhan... maybe I'm just an old jaded person but while I absolutely get the fact that he's a great songwriter, very entertaining live, and a bazillioin people love him, I cannot find a SINGLE THING about his music that makes an impression. Catchy songs: check. Genre defining? How? There are countless singer-songwriter-y guys singing about various aspects of love and relationships. What about his brand of that means anyone will know of him beyond the "2010's hits radio station" of the future (the equivalent of stations that play the best of 80s and 90s music now). Maybe a few singles of his will still be around, but what about him makes it seem like he'll shape music or change the course of a genre?
I dunno, for me it's gotta be that those having a major impact on music now cite the older artsts as major influences, or that in 15-25 yrs we'll see how the artists of today changed somethiing, had a huge impact. Like I think Beyonce beeing talented is unquestionable, whether I like her stuff or not. One thing she's changed or at leasts impacted about the music business is the whole "recording and releasing an entire album, complete with videos for every song, all at once with zero advance notice" which is now starting to be "a thing" for artists. If you can just drop the entire thing out of the blue, it's newsworthy and if it charts, that's all so diifferent from the old school "release a single, with lots of fanfare, then the album, then tour, then more singles..." So one could say that has changed an aspect of the industry or introduced a new aspect. If it's a trend that grows, then Beyonce (or whoever did it first) will have impacted a genre or the entire business.
Which bands of today are likely to have THAT kind of impact, and why do you think they will (question for everyone)?
Someone above said a lot of people don't know who the Clash were. But have they heard of U2? U2 says without the Clash, they wouldn't exist. Same for Rage Against the Machine, who some would include in a list of genre-defining artists. THAT's the kind of influence the Beatles and Stones and James Brown and Public Enemy had (yes, Public Enemy. Talk about genre-defining, there is no questison, no matter what you think of their music).
Likewise, in 20 yrs it will probably turn out that some artist around today is one of these amazing, music-changing artists. And if you said her/his/their name right now, there's a GREAT chance I'd never heard of them right now. But that doesn't mean they aren't out ther,e amazing, breaking all sorts of molds, and about to inspire the next generation of amazing artists.
To further illustrate why some of the bands listed in this thread so far do not meet those criteria, there are a number of bands that I would like to see on such a list but cannot be placed on such a list even though in my own opinion they are epic, here are just a few names that I doubt even 50% of folks would not recognize:
In Rock
Dinosaur Jr.
Mission of Burma
Minutemen
Fugazi
In Jazz
Albert Ayler
Ornette Coleman
Sun Ra
In Blues
Taj Mahal
Otis Spann
Robert Pete William
Tim, I'm not sure if you mean that I intentionally made this thread a set up to disparage recent music but I assure you I did not. That's just not my style, especially when it comes to the sacred topic of music. You will get no bullshit from me on this subject, only sincere and forthright comments. The question from the outset was sincere and I believe I did state or at least allude to the fact that I am excited about the continued possibility of seeing great artists with widespread recognition as a factor (many supremely talented artist like my beloved Replacements and Dinosaur Jr or some of your favorites sadly do not make that list) will emergemerge.
Btw, crazy that you included Dinosaur Jr on your list - even though I saw them way back when, I never listened to them much. My husband is in a total "24/7 Dinosaur Jr Phase" right now, and I am BLOWN AWAY by how much it sounds like they influenced other bands that I adore, like Afghan Whigs and a few others. So talented! I agree totally on them!
So, since Brian has blessed the definition of "epic & influential" for this generation, does anyone who's totally up on current music have anyone they'd throw up as being lauded as super-influential or genre-defining in 20 yrs? Chance the Rapper? Fantastic Negrito? Hurray for the Riff Raff?
Anyone?
Kanye West
Drake
Beyoncé
Taylor Swift
Arcade Fire
Big Potential:
The National
Bon Iver
Kendrick Lamar
Adele
Coldplay
This is off the top of my head, I may edit
Blues artists largely cited by Stones/Led Zep/Jimi Hendrix, many of them died in poverty and never played even huge theaters before they died. But their music was transformative.
So yes, music and how it is delivered and how we "consume" it has evolved and keeps evolving, but so many of the most pivotal bands were not platinum/stadium bands ever, so that doesn't have to be an old or new criteria.
Spice Girls and Britney Spears and Hannah Montana set many record sales and concert ticket sales records in their primes. I don't think anyone's claiming them in the "Most influential in 20 yrs" category...
I think peer/critical admiration is as big of a driver as sales/popularity.
There will be a point, where the demand for reissues of this material, or tapping the vaults for something, will be at its barebones because the band isn't around to sustain it for a promotional cycle, or, even worse (?), its hardest core fans who were around for its most viable years aren't around anymore.
I mean, once baby boomers start dying out at quicker pace, there won't be as much demand for these 60s/70s reissues/deluxe/whatever to keep the catalog fresh in people's minds. So I think that feeds everyone's perception of these "classic" acts and their influence.
So what I've been dancing around, if you wait another 15-20 years, you will see the industry mining the catalogs and careers of bands that Gen X/Y hold in higher regard and you'll see who the most influential of the era are.
As much as I would love for him to be listening to Ryan Adams or Joseph Arthur in years to come - or even Pearl Jam for that matter - it's probably unlikely (unless he's rummaging through my 'old' records!)
As people have mentioned previously, the industry has changed and the way that music is made, marketed and consumed has changed. TV talent shows, and streaming/downloading mean that this year's Next Big Thing is often forgotten about by next year. Even The Beatles would struggle to be anything more than just another boy band these days.
There have certainly been game changers within genres, although not necessarily since 2000. John Frusciante is the first that springs to mind for me; Radiohead, Jack Rose, DJ Shadow, even Eminem, have all brought something new to their fields. I guess Beyoncé, Kendrick or Jack White (more for Third Man than for his solo music) would be more relevant examples to the original post. I can't think of many others.
It's an interesting time for sure. There will be another music revolution, the talent show crap can't last forever! Maybe the most influential artist since 2000 is yet to be discovered. Maybe that guy with the beat up old acoustic in your local bar is the next Dylan. Maybe it really is going to be Bieber! Either way, it'll be fun finding out...
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
“Put yer good money on the sunrise”
(Tim Rogers)
Good point about the promotion cycle although I do believe many of those 60's bands were already legends in their time and I just don't see them fading into obscurity. For example, Robert Johnson, long dead now, is revered as much as ever for his contributions to blues music and is probably appreciated more now than in his life time.
Kids now I think have so many more ways to consume/discover music. I think about how if you graduated high school in 1990 you had heard "Sweet Child of Mine" a million times. In 10 years (or even now maybe) there might not be a song that every high schooler has heard a million times or even one time. They may each be consuming very different music from very different sources.
I also think about how the first people to do something are usually the ones we remember the most. I think going forward it will be harder and harder for artists to break into the "timeless/will be remembered by many forever" category because it is already a crowded category with a 70 year plus history for modern music. It will be possible, but the ones that do it will be fewer and farther between IMO. But who the hell knows? Like someone already said - it will be fun to find out!
The idea that modern music has peaked has intrigued me for a number of years. It's also led me to wondering what will come next. My folks listened to crooners and swing. My generation has been into rock and roll (and blues and jazz for some). The next generations got into hip hop, electronica, noise and a plethora of cross-over genres. And all of those categories are aging as well. So what next? Or have we exhausted to possibilities? Is there something on the horizon we have yet to hear? I hope so, but I have no idea what it would be.