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

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by Sarah

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 . 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

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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 . 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.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

As for their X&Y album?

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

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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.

Originally Posted by 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

Too true Michael.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

. . . 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.

Originally Posted by trackaghost

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by Sarah

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!

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

. . . 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

To people our age (GET THE WALKERS OUT ) -- 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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

So they aren't recognizable.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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?


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.