What do you think will define this decade's music?

[ryan8472]

How about like, what albums from recent years can you see turning into classics one day?

[strandinthewind]

Marshall Mathers (Eminem) will be up there. Like him or not, his controversy, race and the realted fact that Eminem is one of the highest-selling musicians of the early 2000s and one of the highest-selling rap artists of all time - will place him in the text as opposed to a footnote.

As for other artists, there have been a few, but no one spectacular or trendsetting comes to mind - maybe John Mayer :shrug:

None of them, though, approach say a Carole King's "Tapestry."

[estranged4life]

I would not be a good judge, since my taste has totally gone from classic rock/country back towards more metal sounding music - be it death metal or melodic hard rock.

[JazmenFlowers]

this is a good question, but it's so hard to answer. I really think, and hope, Imogen Heap's Speak for Yourself becomes a classic.

[HejiraNYC]

How about like, what albums from recent years can you see turning into classics one day?

I think the first two Coldplay albums have lasting potential. Coldplay is far from being an original, but they have a sense of style and songcraft that their contemporaries lack; they have that extra indefinable something. They spawned a bunch of imitators, but nobody could quite pull it off as well. In a way they are to the 'aughts' what U2 was for the eighties.

As for their X&Y album? :eek:

Gwen Stefani's first solo album has a certain classic vibe about it as well. Sure, it's totally derivative and jumps all over the place stylistically. But it kinda captured and recycled all of the current musical/pop cultural trends, i.e., this is where we were circa 2005. I would not be surprised to hear "Hollahback Girl" being used in a TV commercial 10 years from now...

As much as I hate to admit it... I think the first Avril Lavigne album will be around for many years. It's not that it was any good... but it just contained so many dang hit singles and it was all very, very hook-laden and catchy.

Although it technically came out in 1999, Moby's "Play" didn't really hit big until 2000. I can't believe they're still using songs from the album in TV shows and movies.

My prediction: Amy Winehouse "Back to Black" will be a classic. Her sound is so fresh, and she will spawn a bunch of hack imitators. She will have a long, successful career as long, assuming she doesn't drink herself to death.

[ryan8472]

Well if we go by the thinking that albums that spawned huge hits will become classics, then JT's FutureSex/Lovesounds is destined to become a one, along with Nelly Furtado's albums. And I guess you'd have to throw in the albums by Fall Out Boy, Beyonce, Madonna, Evanescence, Christina Aguilera, etc...

[mikeschmike]

I hope these will become classic, iconic, etc:

Rufus Wainwright-Want One
Outkast-Speakerboxxx/The Love Below
Winehouse-Back to Black
Loretta Lynn-Van Lear Rose

ETA: Green Day-American Idiot (thanks BW)

I also think the Timbaland/N.E.R.D/The Neptunes producing will be associated as a specific style. It's definitely no Barry Gordy or Phil Spector memorable sound but it still has a place in pop music.

[JazmenFlowers]

I hope these will become classic, iconic, etc:
Rufus Wainwright-Want One
Loretta Lynn-Van Lear Rose
:nod: :nod:

[BlackWidow]

Green Day...

[rbs3676]

My prediction: Amy Winehouse "Back to Black" will be a classic. Her sound is so fresh, and she will spawn a bunch of hack imitators. She will have a long, successful career as long, assuming she doesn't drink herself to death.

I totally agree. I absolutely LOVE Amy Winehouse. The CD is a killer from start to finish. I predict multiple Grammy's in February...

rbs

[JazmenFlowers]

I totally agree. I absolutely LOVE Amy Winehouse. The CD is a killer from start to finish. I predict multiple Grammy's in February...

rbs
if they can give Three Six Mafia a Grammy...I'm sure she's a shoein

[strandinthewind]

I just do not see any of the above mentioned peeps as earth shattering talents along the likes of Dylan, Mitchell, King, Taylor, The Beatles, The Stones, The Mac (hell yea in the 70's) , Elvis, etc.

Maybe Winehouse, but her schtick, for the moment, is unproven.

[JazmenFlowers]

I just do not see any of the above mentioned peeps as earth shattering talents along the likes of Dylan, Mitchell, King, Taylor, The Beatles, The Stones, The Mac (hell yea in the 70's) , Elvis, etc.

Maybe Winehouse, but her schtick, for the moment, is unproven.
I think that's because the music industry is forever changed. we are flooded with too many artists and too many songs...before you're too attached to someone, the next best thing comes along. we no longer cultivate talent and nurture it or grow with it. as soon as an artist's formula is done or boring, they're trashed.

[Sarah]

Maybe Winehouse, but her schtick, for the moment, is unproven.

I like her, but her music is a total throwback to the 60s. You can't really be definitive if you didn't really start the sound. It's really not that fresh... it's just refreshing because it's not the same **** everyone else is doing.

I don't know what will define this decade. There are 3 years left, and I'm really hoping that we see better than what we've had for 7 so far. As much as I've had periods of - oh I like this - everything has become so stale, and I find myself going back to the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Even some of my favorite independent record labels are getting boring.

Edit. I agree with what Jazmen just said. The problem is that the "next big thing" is just "the same big thing as last time plus one layer of gloss and from a different label". Barf.

[HejiraNYC]

I just do not see any of the above mentioned peeps as earth shattering talents along the likes of Dylan, Mitchell, King, Taylor, The Beatles, The Stones, The Mac (hell yea in the 70's) , Elvis, etc.

Maybe Winehouse, but her schtick, for the moment, is unproven.

Yes, that is true... we don't have the "earth shattering" talents today. And even the once "earth shattering" talents are now churning out pretty crappy albums (for the most part). Of course there have been much better albums than the ones mentioned here, but the original question was about who/what will define the decade's music, regardless of whether it was any good. We are talking about music that will be remembered, or will live on to be played on oldies or classic rock radio years from now.

Unfortunately we are today in a situation where radio has become monopolized by the same conglomerate and the programming always caters to the lowest common denominator. Any hint of innovation is snuffed out by the suits whose sole objective is to ensure sales. Music is either marketed to the public as manufactured instant-stars (aka, American Idol, Rihanna, etc.), or some kind of thugged out, gangsterish, misogynistic lifestyle. Why should people learn to play instruments or to compose original music when it can all be sampled and recycled so easily with computers? Why should people go to concerts merely to listen to some people on a stage playing instruments and singing when they can have pyrotechnics, choreography, video screens and other things that go 'pop' and 'zowie'? Would the Beatles even stand a chance of being successful if they were just starting out? Yes, they would be critically acclaimed and go on to sell a few albums based on word of mouth and a devoted cult following (e.g., Wilco). But they wouldn't stand a chance of being played on the radio or charting hits, and they certainly would not go on to define the sound of an era. Why do we need the Beatles when we have 'lil Jon?

As for Amy Winehouse... yes, her sound is a bit retro, but it's also distinctly modern but organic. But at the end of the day it's all about that voice. I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard a new artist and declared 'this is the real deal,' and she is one of them. Maybe she will stay stuck in the same rut... or maybe she will break out and do something completely unexpected. In any case, with that voice, she will be the one to watch...

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I do think that each decade has has its share of one hit wonders (Haircut 100 anyone :laugh: ) -- but it seems each decade also had its share of huge talent that defined it - Duran Duran comes to mind in the 80's - though their talent is arguable - that they defined that decade is not - same with Madonna and likely two if not three decade for her (talent aside) :eek:

[shackin'up]

QOTSA

White Stripes

Eminem

Arctic Monkees

Franz Ferdinand

Maybe Coldplay.

Not my choices people, but definately the popicons of a decade.

[trackaghost]

I don't think just what's popular defines a decade's music.
Often it's the influence the act has and how it reflects popular culture.
Look at the Velvet Underground, they sold hardly anything but it's hard to think of the 60s and that whole defining Andy Warhol scene without them. In contrast Loverboy sold millions of records in the 80s but say their name to a youngster today and they would have no clue what you're talking about.

The most obvious one I can think of is The White Stripes. I think already their influence has been huge and despite the rawness of their music they've managed to transcend the alternative music scene and become a huge act. I think in the future at least two or three of their albums will be held up as examples of great albums this decade.

[rbs3676]

I don't think just what's popular defines a decade's music.
Often it's the influence the act has and how it reflects popular culture.
Look at the Velvet Underground, they sold hardly anything but it's hard to think of the 60s and that whole defining Andy Warhol scene without them. In contrast Loverboy sold millions of records in the 80s but say their name to a youngster today and they would have no clue what you're talking about.

The most obvious one I can think of is The White Stripes. I think already their influence has been huge and despite the rawness of their music they've managed to transcend the alternative music scene and become a huge act. I think in the future at least two or three of their albums will be held up as examples of great albums this decade.

I totally agree with your post.

rbs

[strandinthewind]

I don't think just what's popular defines a decade's music . . . .

I disagree in the sense that Nirvana and the like pretty much crafted the 90's - Madonna and punk rock (Blondie, Clash, etc and from which New Wave sprung) pretty much defined the 80's - Led Z., The Eagles, The Mac, and the Bee Gees pretty much defined the 70's - The Beatle were the 60's along with Janis and crewe in the late 60's - Elvis and the girl groups in the 50's. Those are iconic. The Whitestripes, while good, are not iconic. That is what I am using as my definition of a defining sound, etc. - and they were and are still wildly popular.

[gldstwmn]

How about like, what albums from recent years can you see turning into classics one day?

Not too many. Some of the 90's music hasn't held up well at all. I'm going to have to go back through the CD's I've bought in the last five years or so. It would be easier to name singles that would become classics.

[Sarah]

I see what you're saying strand, but I pretty much disagree with you about The White Stripes. I think they're as close to iconic as this decade can hope for. They have an amazing sound that is all their own... unless you've never heard The White Stripes, you know exactly who it is the moment the songs get started. Not just because of Jack's voice, but Meg's drum sound, Jack's guitar sounds, and the old-school raw originality they have.

[gldstwmn]

As much as I hate to admit it... I think the first Avril Lavigne album will be around for many years.

So will styrofoam. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

. . . unless you've never heard The White Stripes . . . .

That is my point - unlike those I listed, many have not. That does not take away from the WS - but I do not think they have defined the 00's. In many ways, Madonna has shaped much of it, though her star has faded from the prior two decades.

But, perhaps that is it - the 00's have no strict definition as we saw in the past four or five decades - actually since the 20's when you consider jazz (dixie land and the blues a la Holliday), the 30's big band, the 40's Andrew Sisters, 50's Elvis - - and so on.

[Macfanforever]

Hahaha, I will apologize now, But this decade's music sucks.To much Rap,hip hop,teenybopper crap, American Idiot show artists music, will hard rock or heavy metal is noise to me.todays country is ok,but it has to much rock influence in it, but I can deal with it.Stevie should try that format,she will have some hits with it.I will stick to my old musty and mildew moldy oldies, old geezer classis country tunes and classic rock tunes.

P.S. Hum Thats why Stevie at the end of her CV concerts mentioning "try to save the dying music industry go to concerts listen to the radio, and buy cd's".

[strandinthewind]

. . . I will stick to my old musty and mildew moldy oldies, old geezer classis country tunes and classic rock tunes.

LMAO - I do Stairmaster everyday to Led. Z., the Motels, Duran Duran, Janis, Nirvana, and really nothing un FM related that was produced later than that :cool:

[Macfanforever]

LMAO - I do Stairmaster everyday to Led. Z., the Motels, Duran Duran, Janis, Nirvana, and really nothing un FM related that was produced later than that :cool:

Yea Led Zep ,The Motels, Duran Duran are in my collection.I think music died in the mid 1990's, anything before that era is good.
To much crap these days, Lazy producers +crappy writers+crappy artists=
Sh$t....

[Sarah]

That is my point - unlike those I listed, many have not. That does not take away from the WS - but I do not think they have defined the 00's. In many ways, Madonna has shaped much of it, though her star has faded from the prior two decades.

So are you saying, by excluding The White Stripes and then taking into account what you and I have said, that the people who don't listen get to decide what was definitive for that era? That makes no sense. There are people who have heard maybe 3 Jimi Hendrix songs and insist that he's the God of Guitar. There are people who have heard Stairway to Heaven only and know the hugeness of LZ. That's just because of the clarity of retrospect... I don't see why time wouldn't do the same for The White Stripes, considering today's dismal scene. They're one of the most visible (well, now) of all the groups trying to do their own thing, and it's actually GOOD.

[strandinthewind]

^

No, what I am saying is that to define an era, you must be huge. The White Stripes are not. This is not a comment on the worth of their music. I am just saying that it seems unlikely the WS will be mentioned in the say context as the people I mentioned. I agree they are talented though. I mean when you think of the 50's and 60's who do you think of? I, and I suggest most, think of the people I mentioned because they were not only talented, they formed a generation through their music. To my knowledge, the WS have not reached that level. In fact, no 00's person or group comes to mind other than Eminem, and I am not that big of a fan of his. But, I recognize his impact on this decade.

[Sarah]

^

No, what I am saying is that to define an era, you must be huge. The White Stripes are not. This is not a comment on the worth of their music. I am just saying that it seems unlikely the WS will be mentioned in the say context as the people I mentioned. I agree they are talented though. I mean when you think of the 50's and 60's who do you think of? I, and I suggest most, think of the people I mentioned because they were not only talented, they formed a generation through their music. To my knowledge, the WS have not reached that level. In fact, no 00's person or group comes to mind other than Eminem, and I am not that big of a fan of his. But, I recognize his impact on this decade.

I think the difference here is that.. with the level of visibility stars have now.. there's not really anyone who is SUPER MEGA HUGE compared to everyone else now. It's not like it was then, with new sounds coming from every direction. When it's all said and done, I think the stand out groups will get the recognition they deserve, because the rest of the crap will fall by the wayside. I mean, to an extent, the 80s and 90s are just like this as well. The White Stripes already have 3 Grammy's, and sales on Icky Thump were their highest first week numbers yet. I wouldn't write them off or even begin to say that they're in any way underground.

[HejiraNYC]

So are you saying, by excluding The White Stripes and then taking into account what you and I have said, that the people who don't listen get to decide what was definitive for that era? That makes no sense. There are people who have heard maybe 3 Jimi Hendrix songs and insist that he's the God of Guitar. There are people who have heard Stairway to Heaven only and know the hugeness of LZ. That's just because of the clarity of retrospect... I don't see why time wouldn't do the same for The White Stripes, considering today's dismal scene. They're one of the most visible (well, now) of all the groups trying to do their own thing, and it's actually GOOD.

Okay... I'll just come right out with it. The White Stripes suck and they are terribly overrated. And I would throw Radiohead into that category as well. Their albums are hyped and the hipsters rush out to buy it without even hearing it. Then their albums fall of the charts very, very quickly because the word of mouth isn't so good. In the process, they sell tons of albums, but they have no real hit singles or radio hits. They have not really succeeded at incorporating current events and sounds while connecting with a wide audience. I can't think of anybody who was directly influenced by the White Stripes, oh, um, except Joss Stone :rolleyes:. I think they just lucked out with exceptionally talented managers and PR folks.

I happen to believe that the sound of an era is defined by the songs that were either hit singles or played a lot on the radio. You can't just take a band that was a critic's darling, but ignored on the radio, and call them the sound of an era. Music can't define an era if nobody has ever heard it! So yes, back in the day the Joni Mitchells, Cat Stevens, James Taylors and Carly Simons of the world had a high level of public awareness due to FM radio, their prolific output and 45 RPM singles. Unfortunately, in today's world, singles are practically non-existent, radio is for sh*t, so the best we can hope for is music that crosses over commercially but doesn't suck too much. I think we can all agree that it's slim pickin's these days.

[foxyluva]

I don't think sales are the most important thing to define a deacade - as Sharon mentioned, Velvet Underground sold zilch, and are possibly one of the most influential alternative bands ever. I guess thats the point though - the defining artist of the '00s to alternative/indie kids will be different to others who are into pop or metal or folk or even classical. It just depends what scene you are into :shrug:

[trackaghost]

Okay... I'll just come right out with it. The White Stripes suck and they are terribly overrated. And I would throw Radiohead into that category as well. Their albums are hyped and the hipsters rush out to buy it without even hearing it. Then their albums fall of the charts very, very quickly because the word of mouth isn't so good. In the process, they sell tons of albums, but they have no real hit singles or radio hits. They have not really succeeded at incorporating current events and sounds while connecting with a wide audience. I can't think of anybody who was directly influenced by the White Stripes, oh, um, except Joss Stone :rolleyes:. I think they just lucked out with exceptionally talented managers and PR folks.

Hey, thanks for revealing to me that the music I enjoy and emotionally connect to, I only like because critics say it's cool. You've opened my eyes. Obviously if you think it's overrated then it must be, and everyone else must be fooling themselves in order to be cool! How dare people enjoy music you can't connect to! The only explanation must be a case of the Emperor's new clothes!

I first saw The White Stripes when they were playing tiny venues when no one was talking about them and loved them then and now they are playing huge arenas and I still love them. And just so you know they get played on the radio here a lot. But of course what's going on in the US is way more defining than anywhere else. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, in today's world, singles are practically non-existent, radio is for sh*t, so the best we can hope for is music that crosses over commercially but doesn't suck too much. I think we can all agree that it's slim pickin's these days.

No, I don't think we can agree with that at all. There's still loads of great music that is both fantastic and hugely successful.

I think the first two Coldplay albums have lasting potential. Coldplay is far from being an original, but they have a sense of style and songcraft that their contemporaries lack; they have that extra indefinable something. They spawned a bunch of imitators, but nobody could quite pull it off as well. In a way they are to the 'aughts' what U2 was for the eighties.

As for their X&Y album? :eek:


Funny how you dismiss Radiohead and yet Coldplay are often considered to be a watered down version of them.



As much as I hate to admit it... I think the first Avril Lavigne album will be around for many years. It's not that it was any good... but it just contained so many dang hit singles and it was all very, very hook-laden and catchy.


Yes, Avril Lavigne is the defining sound of this decade. You've won me over.

I don't think sales are the most important thing to define a deacade - as Sharon mentioned, Velvet Underground sold zilch, and are possibly one of the most influential alternative bands ever. I guess thats the point though - the defining artist of the '00s to alternative/indie kids will be different to others who are into pop or metal or folk or even classical. It just depends what scene you are into :shrug:

Too true Michael.


As for other artists, there have been a few, but no one spectacular or trendsetting comes to mind - maybe John Mayer :shrug:


Strand how can you say the Stripes aren't iconic but then mention Mayer as someone defining modern day music? This is where you lose me.
I have no idea of the Stripes' sales figures in the US but here they are huge, and they get played on the radio a lot, so I can only go on what I know.
Things like the fact that their performance at Glastonbury is still talked about years later, their albums go straight to number one and they are covered in everyday, big selling mainstream newspapers like The Mirror and The Sun in double-page spreads would indicate to me that they've made a cultural impact, and what I was trying to say before, is not that it's only critically lauded acts that are the defining artists of each decade, but their cultural impact is also important in addition to things like sales and radio play, although in this internet age I think radio play matters less and less.
Plus the majority of music acts considered to define each decade were fantastic! The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Nirvana etc. I don't think it's just the fact that they sell loads. There are plenty of acts that have sold a lot of albums that aren't considered defining.
Btw, I do totally agree about Eminem :cool:

[Mari]

I think the power of the music industry to push absolute crap into our ears is what defines this decade. There are great bands and artists, but they just don't get the chance, do they? Instead it's Idols crap.
Wait, I can contradict myself, a positive move in today's music is the power of the internet, mp3, downloading. Because that gives us back the right to choose.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Strand how can you say the Stripes aren't iconic but then mention Mayer as someone defining modern day music? This is where you lose me.

I was just using him as an example. I personally think he is in no way defining or iconinc, but he is popular and apparently lasting. But, the Beatles he is not.

I have no idea of the Stripes' sales figures in the US but here they are huge, and they get played on the radio a lot, so I can only go on what I know.
Things like the fact that their performance at Glastonbury is still talked about years later, their albums go straight to number one and they are covered in everyday, big selling mainstream newspapers like The Mirror and The Sun in double-page spreads would indicate to me that they've made a cultural impact, and what I was trying to say before, is not that it's only critically lauded acts that are the defining artists of each decade, but their cultural impact is also important in addition to things like sales and radio play, although in this internet age I think radio play matters less and less.
Plus the majority of music acts considered to define each decade were fantastic! The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Nirvana etc. I don't think it's just the fact that they sell loads. There are plenty of acts that have sold a lot of albums that aren't considered defining.
Btw, I do totally agree about Eminem :cool:

Who knows, the WS may be that - but, I challenge anyone to say with a straight face that they have defined an era like The Beatles or Madonna did. After all, the latter were covered globally :shrug:

Again, I am not commenting on the talent of the WS in a detracting manner. I am just saying they appear not to be at the level of gobal defining that people I mentioned appear to be and/or have been.

[Sarah]

Hey, thanks for revealing to me that the music I enjoy and emotionally connect to, I only like because critics say it's cool. You've opened my eyes. Obviously if you think it's overrated then it must be, and everyone else must be fooling themselves in order to be cool! How dare people enjoy music you can't connect to! The only explanation must be a case of the Emperor's new clothes!

I first saw The White Stripes when they were playing tiny venues when no one was talking about them and loved them then and now they are playing huge arenas and I still love them. And just so you know they get played on the radio here a lot. But of course what's going on in the US is way more defining than anywhere else. :rolleyes:



Thank you, Sharon. I don't have to say very much now. Other than a few singles, WS don't have much radio airplay here. At least, not airplay that is reported to R&R.


HejiraNYC:
I think the first two Coldplay albums have lasting potential. Coldplay is far from being an original, but they have a sense of style and songcraft that their contemporaries lack; they have that extra indefinable something. They spawned a bunch of imitators, but nobody could quite pull it off as well. In a way they are to the 'aughts' what U2 was for the eighties.




http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/images/smilies/yap2.gif

So now, I'm just gonna come on out and say it... Coldplay sucks. I am not a huge Radiohead fan, but Radiohead mops the floor with Coldplay every day.
You want to talk about stuff being defined by commercial radio, then you throw out Coldplay? Please. Coldplay is a radio baby machine hyped so much more than the White Stripes.

I don't read music critic reviews or recommendations. I don't watch television, and I don't listen to commercial radio outside of the stations that I work at. Don't you dare insult me by telling me that I listen to something just because hipsters say it's cool. I am the DEAD LAST person on this planet who does something because it's COOL. I do what I want, say what I say, and like what I like because I run my life.

Have you even listened to all the White Stripes albums? Is that how you decided they were overrated?

Sorry to make this all about the White Stripes, but the arguments against them don't really hold water. As a side note, Icky Thump hasn't grown on me as quickly as the other albums did, but I think it's the touch of a different producer.

[Sarah]

Who knows, the WS may be that - but, I challenge anyone to say with a straight face that they have defined an era like The Beatles or Madonna did. After all, the latter were covered globally :shrug:

Sorry to say, but you're expecting WAY too much considering the times we live in. Definition has already happened, and there are so many different sets out there, that there will not be another Beatles or Madonna style revolution.

What else is there to do? There aren't new sounds to be made, and every hybrid of every genre is already being explored in some way, shape, or form in the world of electronic music.

And, I do not like the way John Mayer sings. I wish he'd just play guitar for someone else.

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, Brittany Spears may be the defining moment of this decade. Think of all the wannabees that came after, jessica Simpson among that ilk. That is a rather sad commentary on the times, but I am unsure if it is an invalid one given that most comments herein have been about the cookie cutter prefab music that La Spears made "glorious."

[trackaghost]

Sorry to say, but you're expecting WAY too much considering the times we live in. Definition has already happened, and there are so many different sets out there, that there will not be another Beatles or Madonna style revolution.


I completely agree!


Who knows, the WS may be that - but, I challenge anyone to say with a straight face that they have defined an era like The Beatles or Madonna did. After all, the latter were covered globally :shrug:

Again, I am not commenting on the talent of the WS in a detracting manner. I am just saying they appear not to be at the level of gobal defining that people I mentioned appear to be and/or have been.

As far as John Mayer goes though, he's certainly not a global phenomenon either, I don't think anyone would know who he is here. But The White Stripes are actually hugely popular in the States and around the world. I looked up their sales figures and in the US their last album is certified platinum and the new one is already gold and it has just come out. But at the end of the day I am merely speculating here, I just think that there's something iconic and influential (and they are influential among the alternative scene) about the Stripes that I can imagine people looking back at this decade and thinking Justin Timberlake, Eminem and The White Stripes.

[Sarah]

I just want to know why you guys have decided that radio & tv saturation is the deciding factor in whether or not a particular group or artist will define the decade. You point to references like the Beatles and Madonna. Okay. The Beatles come from a simpler time in the history of media and music. Madonna came in during the early-enough days of music video and decided to shake it up. That doesn't exist now. Did all the other artists who didn't top the charts not matter? Did they not impact the sounds of the era? As this discussion turns toward that point, it's starting to lose all credibility in my view.

And strand, I do think you have some sort of point about Britney Spears. She brought back some crap that no one dared touch since Debbie Gibson and Tiffany. And, if I had to choose out of all of the pop girls - excluding Christina Aguilera for her obviously superior vocal skills - Britney is the leader of that pack in sales, plus the fact that she just kind of came out of nowhere and blew up. But, that explosion was more notable in 98 and 99... I don't think the 2000's first decade will be remembered by that trend. Especially considering the backlash, and then the whole evanescense (spelling?)/linkin park thing that happened.. and this neo-pop-punk-emo trash that we're getting now. 00s may just turn out to be remembered as Boys in Eyeliner pt 2.

[strandinthewind]

I don't think sales are the most important thing to define a deacade - as Sharon mentioned, Velvet Underground sold zilch, and are possibly one of the most influential alternative bands ever. I guess thats the point though - the defining artist of the '00s to alternative/indie kids will be different to others who are into pop or metal or folk or even classical. It just depends what scene you are into :shrug:

True - but Velvet Underground, while defining, are the exception and not the rule when The Beatles, Elvis, etc. are considered. And, Velvet Underground reached cult status, so they were popular. But, I venture to say that most people might have heard the name, but have no clue what decade they influenced.

[strandinthewind]

. . . that I can imagine people looking back at this decade and thinking Justin Timberlake, Eminem and The White Stripes.

I venture to say the reason is that most people do not know who the White Stripes are other than some vague reference. Eminem and JT are widely known across the world. Thus, the icon status.

Again, nothing against the WS, but they are just not as recognizable, at least over here.

[trackaghost]

I don't think that's true. I think most people associate The Velvet Underground with Andy Warhol and he's always associated with the 60s.

[strandinthewind]

I don't think that's true. I think most people associate The Velvet Underground with Andy Warhol and he's always associated with the 60s.

To people our age (GET THE WALKERS OUT :laugh: ) -- but most people 30 and below might know Warhol - but I doubt they'd know Velvet Underground, though they might recognize Reed for Take a Walk on the Wild Side, which they heard in some retro club and went ahhhhhhh isn't that hip upon hearing it and without giving it a second thought becuase La Spears' teetons were ont he tely.

[Sarah]

Again, nothing against the WS, but they are just not as recognizable, at least over here.

So they aren't recognizable.


The White Stripes suck and they are terribly overrated.


But they're overrated.


Does. Not. Compute.

Who's right here? How on earth will we decide? :rolleyes:


To define, you have to earn respect. TWS are one of about maybe 4 or 5 active new-esque groups that I have respect for, and the most visible of all of them.

[Sarah]

and TWS influence and impact on the alternative scene (which continues to get bigger and bigger) is undeniable IMO.

yep. that's what i meant when i was talking about getting respect. take the groups who want no part of this recycled trash and ask them how they feel about the white stripes. i'd be willing to bet that a large portion of them would have much love. no question.

[DeadliestPoison]

I venture to say the reason is that most people do not know who the White Stripes are other than some vague reference. Eminem and JT are widely known across the world. Thus, the icon status.

Again, nothing against the WS, but they are just not as recognizable, at least over here.
I think the Stripes are incredibly recognizable. Just Jack & Meg. Guitar & drums. Hell, their red/white color scheme is pretty recognizable. I also think their sound is, overall, quite different than most other stuff being played on the radio, if only because of how influenced it is, Jack's vocal style, and the guitar/drum formula.

As for today's music scene, I don't know if there's going to be one artist who can be hailed as The Artist for the era. As opposed to earlier decades when we had a few huge artists (your Beatles, Britneys, Spice Girls, etc) dominating the charts, cultivating an image, and taking advantage of media & promotions, we have a bunch of not-so-huge artists taking advantage of the same. Thus, the 'scene' is saturated by flash-in-the-pan artists that come & go quickly.

Granted, I'm a little out of touch with current music. College has turned me into an indie kid, and I get most of my music recommendations from people on message boards and review websites, so I could be totally off in that observation.

As far as classics go, I'd love to see Neko Case get some huge love down the line. The way people talk about her now and the quality of her albums are certainly deserving of that title.

[strandinthewind]

But this decade isn't even over, aren't we talking about who potentially will be associated with this decade? You've already conceded that The Velvet Underground did it. I think The White Stripes will be. And I don't think just the level of fame makes you an icon, as I explained before. Is George Bush an icon then? It's a combination of things IMO, and TWS influence and impact on the alternative scene (which continues to get bigger and bigger) is undeniable IMO.

Yes, like him or not, Bush is an icon, at least as that term normally is defined, and much in this decade will be defined by him.

AS for the WS - put a picture of them next to a picture of JT and walk down the street and ask 100 people who influenced music most. I suggest JT will get 99 affirmations.

But, to each their own.

[Sarah]

AS for the WS - put a picture of them next to a picture of JT and walk down the street and ask 100 people who influenced music most. I suggest JT will get 99 affirmations.

I call BS. That's not a rational way to decide who is the most influential. That's how you decide who is the most visible.

JT does nothing that Michael Jackson and any number of electronic musicians haven't already done. His sound is not fresh, new, influential, or revolutionary in any way. HE is pretty and likeable. His music is not what makes his career as huge as it is. It's just what they stamp his face on and sell. Boy actually dances way better than he sings.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

Historically, the trendsetter in music sets the dialogue spoken for the next severals. Look at The Beatles, Elvis, The Supremes. They were all so popular that they were a heavy influence and iconic at the same times - emblematic of an era if you will.

So, yes, to be the standard by which a decade is focused, you have to be popular or have some other something a la Velvet Underground.

I just do not see the WS as having that, talented though they may be. In other words, other girl groups predated and/or post-dated The Supremes, but when I say girl group from the 60's who do most people think of? I suggest it is The Supremes and regardless of any lack of talent they may have had. That is how I define musical influence.

[David]

Historically, the trendsetter in music sets the dialogue spoken for the next severals. Look at The Beatles, Elvis, The Supremes. They were all so popular that they were a heavy influence and iconic at the same times - emblematic of an era if you will.
Cold are the hands of time that creep along relentlessly, destroying slowly but without pity that which yesterday was young.

--The Wienie King

I have practically nothing to add to this discussion, except to say that sometimes perceiving the influential requires the passage of many years, forcing a sifting of perspective.

Also, there are different kinds of influential: There's influential on the general culture in terms of dress, speechways, lifestyles & referencing. Or there's influential on an art form itself, which (depending on the art form) isn't always apparent to the wider public. In movies, for example, Harry Potter would be an example of the former but not the latter, & the styles & phases of noir would be an example of the latter. The Harry Potter movies haven't influenced any part of the course of cinema (except in commercial terms as far as what gets made), but every kid in America & England is enamored of them. Noir didn't alter the landscape of the world, but its various styles spread through the art form itself like a red tide, & its influence is felt to this day in many contemporary movies, spread out across multiple film & TV genres.

[Sarah]

^^^^

Historically, the trendsetter in music sets the dialogue spoken for the next severals. Look at The Beatles, Elvis, The Supremes. They were all so popular that they were a heavy influence and iconic at the same times - emblematic of an era if you will.

I've got to disagree with you on this yet again. My thoughts about that being a time, place in the world, and all-in-all situation that is completely and totally gone forever and not coming back still stands.

Are you saying that The Beatles, Elvis, and Supremes are only considered iconic because of the hype that surrounded them? I hope that's not what you're saying, because it's so wrong that I don't even know where to start. It's actually kind of blasphemous in the name of each of those.

The Beatles may have started out being so adored because of their cuteness, but their LEGENDARY, definitive status came from the revolutionary music they made - which continues influencing other musicians, even in their childhood.

Will Justin Timberlake do that? Will Coldplay do that? No. Do the White Stripes have a possibility of doing that? Yes. In terms of the world, they're a relatively new band, and already other groups are giving them props, already there are multiple books, already (and from the very start) they defined a sound and look all their own without any help of a label or manager.

Will you look back and say, "oh yeah, Elvis, The Beatles, The Supremes, and The White Stripes"? No. There is a certain point in time where that list just, stops. To certain people, the 60s are remembered as rock and roll, surf, acid rock/summer of love, the beginning of hard rock, or motown. The 70s get classic rock, arena rock, disco, and punk. Etc, etc, etc.. There's no one certain thing. You have to look back at the scope of the whole thing realistically and say, "Damn, how massive are The Beatles that they get a nod from virtually freaking EVERYONE, transcending all of those niches." It is just a bit ridiculous to even insinuate that someone else will come along and get that huge, and even more ridiculous to insinuate that we have to wait for that to happen before we can argue that a particular group could PERHAPS MAYBE be thrown in as being influential or significant to our decade.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Are you saying that The Beatles, Elvis, and Supremes are only considered iconic because of the hype that surrounded them? I hope that's not what you're saying, because it's so wrong that I don't even know where to start. It's actually kind of blasphemous in the name of each of those . . . .

As far as defining an era - yes. You cannot think of someone as an icon if you do not know who they are and it takes the majority of people to make someone an icon of an era :shrug:

Though, that is not the only reason they are considered talented, etc.

In the end, I am talking only about who you think of when you think of the 60's - which is related to the topic of this thread. I am in no way commenting on talent, which is what I think you are talking about. Again, Brittany Spears could be the poster child of 1998-2008 -- but that is no comment on her talent.

[strandinthewind]

Cold are the hands of time that creep along relentlessly, destroying slowly but without pity that which yesterday was young.

--The Wienie King

I have practically nothing to add to this discussion, except to say that sometimes perceiving the influential requires the passage of many years, forcing a sifting of perspective.

Also, there are different kinds of influential: There's influential on the general culture in terms of dress, speechways, lifestyles & referencing. Or there's influential on an art form itself, which (depending on the art form) isn't always apparent to the wider public. In movies, for example, Harry Potter would be an example of the former but not the latter, & the styles & phases of noir would be an example of the latter. The Harry Potter movies haven't influenced any part of the course of cinema (except in commercial terms as far as what gets made), but every kid in America & England is enamored of them. Noir didn't alter the landscape of the world, but its various styles spread through the art form itself like a red tide, & its influence is felt to this day in many contemporary movies, spread out across multiple film & TV genres.

I agree, but both noir and Potter have been iconic, perhaps for different reasons, in the sense that the 00's film culture can be defined by Harry Potter - just as the Lord of the Rings was wholly iconic :shrug:

Again, the 00's will be defined by W and his policies. I do not like them, but that has nothing to do with the presence of him and them and the guiding determinent set.

[Sarah]

As far as defining an era - yes. You cannot think of someone as an icon if you do not know who they are and it takes the majority of people to make someone an icon of an era :shrug:


Then this is a fundamental, irreconcilable disagreement that we're having.

I believe their MUSIC defined the era. I'm sorry, but hype or no, you wouldn't know WTF the Beatles were if their music hadn't been so awesome.

Again, on the whole Britney Spears thing... there's actually some validity there if she is looked back on and considered iconic. She pretty much single handedly brought the teen pop thing back after it slept for 15 years, minus the whole Spice Girls girl power thing. Do I like her music? No. Did she alter the pop scene quite a bit when she broke out? Yep. When Britney was virgin pop, everyone else was virgin pop. When Britney got dirty, everyone else got dirty. When Britney comes back, her album - whatever it may sound like - will be huge again and someone else will ride her coattails on whatever style of dance pop she's going to be doing. I'm not a fan, but I think it's fair to throw her in the pop music/pop culture history book. And I think it's just as fair to throw in the White Stripes, even if their home-base is different or not as vocal and visible.

Again, the 00's will be defined by W and his policies. I do not like them, but that has nothing to do with the presence of him and them and the guiding determinent set.

But this topic is about defining this decade's MUSIC. There's been some anti-Bush music, but it really hasn't done anything, now, has it?

[strandinthewind]

. . . There is a certain point in time where that list just, stops . . . .

The last I can think of was Nirvana - the Seattle grunge just exploded with them on top of the wave.

Winehouse currently is almost a fad. But, she struck a nerve that may last. We shall see.

As for the WS, they have not struck such a global nerve as to be instantly recognized. Having said that, they may be iconic amongst those who study music, just as Big Mamma Thornton, whose style effected music for decades, though she is a relative unkown. In fact, her importance really cannot be overstated - just ask Elvis who rode to fame on "Hound Dog" or Joplin who soared with "Ball and Chain," both of which she originally performed on the "chitlin' circuit" years before.

[strandinthewind]

. . . But this topic is about defining this decade's MUSIC. There's been some anti-Bush music, but it really hasn't done anything, now, has it?

Right, but I was referring the other comment earlier, which was, in effect, is W iconic. i say the anwer is yes.

As for the other things, I agree The Beatles's music, like the others, defined the era, but it was more than the music. In other words, if they just got up there and played and never gave an interview or said one word not in a song, their status would have been lessoned. Similarly, had Elvis not swung those white hips in front of white people, to utter social bedlam mind you, we likely would view him as okay, but not trendsetting. So, it is more than the music which established the iconic or defining status. You mostly admit this with your everyone did as Brittany did example earlier.

[Sarah]

In other words, if they just got up there and played and never gave an interview or said one word not in a song, their status would have been lessoned. Similarly, had Elvis not swung those white hips in front of white people, to utter social bedlam mind you, we likely would view him as okay, but not trendsetting. So, it is more than the music which established the iconic or defining status. You mostly admit this with your everyone did as Brittany did example earlier.

I see your point, but really, they were kind of the first. That level of hype isn't really going to happen in that way again. The hype now is shock or controversy... and even there, The Beatles and Elvis were on the front lines of that, too. It's just not fair to measure others by that standard. The shoes are too big to be filled.

Also, you have to keep in mind the talking heads who will be discussing this in the future and coming up with these lists. There will be some best-of-90s-pop blahblahblah type lists, but really, the reviewers and music critics will set the tone and write the books, articles, and zines that newer generations will seek out when they explore music of the past. In this situation, I think you may just end up seeing The White Stripes get more kudos than you're currently anticipating. And other groups that don't get much mention, either, will be included as well. Greg already mentioned Neko Case. I'll hope some other over-looked groups who do their own thing.. Air.. Blonde Redhead.. Muse.. (I'll stop there) get thrown in too.

[foxyluva]

True - but Velvet Underground, while defining, are the exception and not the rule when The Beatles, Elvis, etc. are considered. And, Velvet Underground reached cult status, so they were popular. But, I venture to say that most people might have heard the name, but have no clue what decade they influenced.

They were pretty much a major influence to the alternative scene - not to mention artists like Iggy Pop and David Bowie. Like I said before, The Beatles may have been in the forefront of influence in the 60s, but underground bands like VU were just as influential, just on a different level...

[DeadliestPoison]

I'll hope some other over-looked groups who do their own thing.. Air.. Blonde Redhead.. Muse.. (I'll stop there) get thrown in too.
Speaking of Blonde Redhead, '23' is a fantastic album. That's one I can listen to and totally lose myself in. You've reminded me I wanted to check out their other material. :)

[xxxmx]

i was hesitant to open this thread, but thanks to the wonders of Ignore, it didn't take that long to read. :wavey:

if you had asked me this question a few years ago, i would have named a few that just aren't as relevant today as i had expected. and a few years from now, i may look back and completely dismiss the ones i name today. who's to say?

genre preference is such a personal/relative thing, i don't think there's much of a chance that we'll agree on anything. i can't stand the White Stripes, but i'm sure you don't love the Flaming Lips or Gov't Mule. it's all tit for tat. but minus the tit.

sometimes you people make my head hurt.

[estranged4life]

I think the power of the music industry to push absolute crap into our ears is what defines this decade. There are great bands and artists, but they just don't get the chance, do they? Instead it's Idols crap.

Couldnt have said it better myself.


As for the genre I have been enjoying for almost 25 years (of my 37 year life), heavy metal, the current crop of new artists doesnt particularly work for me - when you have just aggression without ANY iota of substance than you are nothing but 'white noise' to my ears (Watch MTV 2's Headbanger's Ball for many an example of 'white noise').

Smaller metal labels have so many 'cookie cutter' bands out it is hard to find one to enjoy from infancy til they become an established artist. I hope that trend changes...At least the rap (As my 14 yr.old niece has publicly stated "Rap needs to pack it up and leave") has been REMOVED from my music, Thank God/Allah/Whoever!!!!

[Sarah]

i can't stand the White Stripes, but i'm sure you don't love the Flaming Lips or Gov't Mule. it's all tit for tat. but minus the tit.

sometimes you people make my head hurt.

The Flaming Lips... another group that needs to be added to the list. Not a lot of public recognition - but lots of buzz and love from the alt music scene and critics.

And sorry about your head; I assume it's the fact that there is an actual civil discussion happening. Perhaps you'd rather we go back to endless threads about 7 Wonders or chiffon talk? No thanks.

[trackaghost]

Strand you're right, Bush is an icon, in different sense than what I was thinking though. I think people like Marianne Faithful and Patti Smith are icons too, but I don't think they are necessarily instantly recognisable to all.

The Flaming Lips... another group that needs to be added to the list. Not a lot of public recognition, but lots of buzz and love from the alt music scene and critics.

And sorry about your head, I assume it's the fact that there is an actual civil discussion happening. Perhaps you'd rather we go back to endless threads about 7 Wonders or chiffon talk? No thanks.

I love the Flaming Lips! They are actually one of my favourite groups.

[strandinthewind]

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/britneyvsjack.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

Brittany and Jack - separated at birth :eek:

from www.perezhilton.com

[Sarah]

holy wow. britney is totally in her happy place.

[strandinthewind]

She looks bloated and crocked out of her head. I truly wish she would get her act together because I would not wish the place she seems to be in on anyone.

[TwistedGypsy]

My 2 cents on the music industry and this past decade's music...it sucks big donkey balls. Except for a few albums from already established and respected artists i.e. Johnny Cash, Emmylou Harris, Fleetwood Mac, Stevie, Lindsey, Loretta Lynn, Annie Lennox just to name a few. Music this decade has been about making the most money as fast as they can and as Stevie said "all the quick cuts on MTV". Theres no substance and it breaks my heart to see todays generation singing along to this crap and having that crap has their annoying ringtones.
Some music that I've been introduced to this decade that I really hope gets out their to the masses is: Shelby Lynne-see I am Shelby Lynne, Identity Crisis and Suit Yourself
Pete Yorn- see Music for the Morning After, The Day I Forgot and Nightcrawler
Butch Walker- Left of Self Centered, only one I can think of right now
Interpol- check out the songs Obstacle 1, Stella was a diver and their newest album is really great

[Sarah]

Some music that I've been introduced to this decade that I really hope gets out their to the masses is: Shelby Lynne-see I am Shelby Lynne, Identity Crisis and Suit Yourself
Pete Yorn- see Music for the Morning After, The Day I Forgot and Nightcrawler
Butch Walker- Left of Self Centered, only one I can think of right now
Interpol- check out the songs Obstacle 1, Stella was a diver and their newest album is really great

I think you'd benefit from a little digging. The artists you've mentioned aren't exactly underground; they do have their own followings.

A lot of this decade's music has been crap, yes. But that's just the commercial stuff - just like you're wishing on these artists you've just mentioned. Nothing unique is ever accepted by the masses these days, unless it's a watered down version of its former self. Good artists don't have to get HUGE to be important.

Stop listening to the radio and TV, and start exploring new music in genres other than "pop" or "rock". :)

[TwistedGypsy]

I think you'd benefit from a little digging. The artists you've mentioned aren't exactly underground; they do have their own followings.

A lot of this decade's music has been crap, yes. But that's just the commercial stuff - just like you're wishing on these artists you've just mentioned. Nothing unique is ever accepted by the masses these days, unless it's a watered down version of its former self. Good artists don't have to get HUGE to be important.

Stop listening to the radio and TV, and start exploring new music in genres other than "pop" or "rock". :)

I'll pass on the digging because I know these people are underground. I was just giving a list of artists who I think haven't hit middle America and who have something unique to contribute. I also know good artists don't have to be huge to be important. We all know that.
And I don't base my musical tastes on what I hear on tv or radio. :)

[TwistedGypsy]

I think you'd benefit from a little digging. The artists you've mentioned aren't exactly underground; they do have their own followings.

A lot of this decade's music has been crap, yes. But that's just the commercial stuff - just like you're wishing on these artists you've just mentioned. Nothing unique is ever accepted by the masses these days, unless it's a watered down version of its former self. Good artists don't have to get HUGE to be important.

Stop listening to the radio and TV, and start exploring new music in genres other than "pop" or "rock". :)

I'll pass on the digging because I know these people aren't underground. I was just giving a list of artists who I think haven't hit middle America and who have something unique to contribute. I also know good artists don't have to be huge to be important. We all know that.
And I don't base my musical tastes on what I hear on tv or radio. :)

[Sarah]

I also know good artists don't have to be huge to be important. We all know that.

based on some earlier discussion in this thread, i dunno about that last part so much. :laugh:

basically, i mean people in general should do more digging.. instead of just waiting for awesome songs to fall in their laps via the radio or tv. i just don't want to see the good stuff tainted by middle america, really.. middle america just doesn't have the capacity to fully digest some of the more inventive, interesting music that's out there.

[gldstwmn]

Interestingly, Brittany Spears may be the defining moment of this decade. Think of all the wannabees that came after, jessica Simpson among that ilk. That is a rather sad commentary on the times, but I am unsure if it is an invalid one given that most comments herein have been about the cookie cutter prefab music that La Spears made "glorious."

The only way for her to become iconic now would be if she kicked the bucket. In a way, she's almost on the same kind of fame train as Anna Nicole was.
I actually saw her on her first tour. What a weird show that was. There were some creepy looking older men who just came to the show by themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them showed up on that Dateline Predator show one day.
Anyway, she was in a pink vinyl jumpsuit and a very pretty and clean looking back then. There was a lot of speculation about her getting implants at the time. I'm almost positive she was singing to a backing track, although I never asked the production staff. She danced well.
I never saw any of her tours after that. :shrug:
What I could never fathom was how she sold as many records as she did.
If she does survive, which I certainly hope she does it will be interesting to see if she can be that Britney again. She is still only in her 20's. I hope she doesn't become a memeber of the 27 club.

[gldstwmn]

Yes, like him or not, Bush is an icon, at least as that term normally is defined, and much in this decade will be defined by him.


How tragic. But hey, we made it through Nixon right? At least that's what I keep telling myself.

[DeadliestPoison]

What I could never fathom was how she sold as many records as she did.
I think it's pretty simple, actually. When she started out, she was really the only solo female act that had mass appeal with younger girls -- Christina, Jessica, Mandy, etc all followed in her footsteps to varying degrees of success. She'd come under scrutiny later on because of the way she dressed, but it still holds that a large group of adolescent girls looked up to her and identified with that whole small-town-girl-finds-huge-success angle.

Then you had the older guys who bought her stuff for other reasons.

Aside from all that, it's just fun music. Sort of like how Nelly Furtado's latest sold a ton more than her last two records. She just wanted to have fun and let ~loose~, and saw massive success despite her other work (IMO) being far better in comparison. People react to fun, well-constructed music (at least I think it's well put-together, for what it is), and Britney certainly had that down.