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

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sarah

. . . 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

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]

Originally Posted by David

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

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by Sarah

. . . 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]

Originally Posted by Sarah

. . . 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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by Sarah

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.