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

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

:nod: :nod:

Green Day...

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

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.

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.

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...