What bands/artists started from 2000 on do you believe will be hugely remembered 45 years from now?

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

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!

Yes, Tempo, I think you're right! Not familiar with The Weeks- I'll check them out, thanks!

ledvedderman said:

I can't help but feel that Gaslight Anthem came out a solid ten years too soon. I imagine them and their sound as something that could have had a cultural impact in an alternate universe. If 59 Sound came out in the next five years as opposed to in the past- maybe it turns into the massive album it deserved to be.

Definitely some potential there to be big. What are they up to these days?

ledvedderman

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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!

Yes, Tempo, I think you're right! Not familiar with The Weeks- I'll check them out, thanks!

ledvedderman said:

I can't help but feel that Gaslight Anthem came out a solid ten years too soon. I imagine them and their sound as something that could have had a cultural impact in an alternate universe. If 59 Sound came out in the next five years as opposed to in the past- maybe it turns into the massive album it deserved to be.

Definitely some potential there to be big. What are they up to these days?

Gaslight is on a hiatus. Their lead singer is doing some solid solo material. He's left the door open recently to getting the band back together. So who knows. Bands like Gaslight Anthem, Band of Horses, My Morning Jacket seem to be right there at the tipping point of being really big and iconic, but the industry environment just wasn't right for them to go from good to iconic.

tempo_n_groove

ledvedderman said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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!

Yes, Tempo, I think you're right! Not familiar with The Weeks- I'll check them out, thanks!

ledvedderman said:

I can't help but feel that Gaslight Anthem came out a solid ten years too soon. I imagine them and their sound as something that could have had a cultural impact in an alternate universe. If 59 Sound came out in the next five years as opposed to in the past- maybe it turns into the massive album it deserved to be.

Definitely some potential there to be big. What are they up to these days?

Gaslight is on a hiatus. Their lead singer is doing some solid solo material. He's left the door open recently to getting the band back together. So who knows. Bands like Gaslight Anthem, Band of Horses, My Morning Jacket seem to be right there at the tipping point of being really big and iconic, but the industry environment just wasn't right for them to go from good to iconic.

Those bands are fun but they won't be the catalyst to get the ball moving. You need youth unfortunately...

brianlux

It's true, the brightest do seem to start young. I was listening to some early recording Mick Taylor made with John Mayall and thinking, "Man, how does a kid play like that at eighteen?"!

And good point about industry environment, ledved. And what about great managers? Are there any Danny Fields or Andrew Loog Oldhams or Brian Epsteins anymore?

Tim Simmons

Coran Capshaw

Tim Simmons

I think there will be plenty of artists, but people who post here won't like them because they aren't necessarily in the rock vein. But that's the era.

tempo_n_groove

Tim Simmons said:

I think there will be plenty of artists, but people who post here won't like them because they aren't necessarily in the rock vein. But that's the era.

Exactly!

"Rock" is Ed Sheeran and 5 Seconds of summer. We need to embrace that. Like it or not it IS a form of rock music.

brianlux

Tim Simmons said:

I think there will be plenty of artists, but people who post here won't like them because they aren't necessarily in the rock vein. But that's the era.

Many at least, yes. We do love our rock and roll. I know I do! But I would also love to see a giant like Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Larry Coryell, John Mc Laughlin, Muddy Waters, Lightnin' Hopkins, Howlin' Wolf, etc. come along too! Some people think it will be Kanye West. I doubt it but we'll see.

Tim Simmons

I think Kanye will be one of them. Definitely. There is not a more critically acclaimed artist who has emerged post 2000 than him.

Tim Simmons

This is an interesting list. lots of artists tied at 83 though. Also, I don't think they give any weight because artists with one album that happened to be acclaimed make the list while artists who made 3-5 may not because of of maybe 1-2 albums weighing them down.

http://www.albumoftheyear.org/bands/top-artists/


But it's a conversation starter.

JH6056

tbergs said:

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?

JH6056

brianlux said:

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?

JH6056

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?

ledvedderman

JH6056 said:

tbergs said:

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.

Tim Simmons

Absolutely. I agree about King Kendrick

Tim Simmons

JH6056 said:

tbergs said:

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.

PJ_Soul

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

PJ_Soul

JH6056 said:

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.

tbergs

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.

tempo_n_groove

I had to look up who Jeff Buckley was. Never heard of him, don't remember him...