PDA

View Full Version : Band of the aughts?



M2
09-30-2008, 04:18 PM
Back in 1964, with the release of "A Hard Day's Night", the Beatles became the the first Greatest Rock 'N' Roll Band in the World. They weren't a vocal group with an anonymous backup band, they wrote their own songs. It set the template for pretty much every band that followed. It's disputable as to how long the Beatles held that title, I'd argue that the honor moved to the Rolling Stones in December 1969 when they released "Let It Bleed", but these things aren't written in stone.

Did Led Zeppelin or The Who ever officially wear that mantle? Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band? The Clash? Talking Heads? The Police?

U2 pretty clearly held the title during the mid-to-late '80s. But did Nirvana take it from them? Or did R.E.M? Or did Pearl Jam? Or did Radiohead? Or did Public Enemy? Does Public Enemy count?

It's the stuff of endless barroom banter, but I'm more interested in who the current Greatest Rock 'N' Roll Band in the World is. Is there one? Or is the very notion of that title an anachronism?

Raw stats never were much of a guide in determining the Greatest Band. Def Leppard sold plenty of albums once upon a time. Greatest Band? I don't think so. It's also not how many Enormodomes you can fill. Nor is it that modern measure of how many downloads you get. Otherwise we'd have to pay homage to Coldplay ... and I'll have none of that.

The Greatest Band in the World is the one that can churn out a string of must-have records, discs that demand repeat listening, that stand out as distinct and inspire waves of bands behind them. Who's making the music that matters?

It's hard to say these days because so little does matter. The radio penetration of anything new is extremely limited thanks to Balkanized radio formats, which seek to keep playing something that sounds like the last thing rather than embrace the new.

Yet there are some bands that have been enjoying very good decades. The Hives, The White Stripes and Arcade Fire (not necessarily in that order) leap to mind. Is it one of those we'll point to when we look back on the aughts in another ten years? Do they even get into the argument?

I'm curious as to what others think on this subject.

Johnny Footstool
09-30-2008, 04:42 PM
The White Stripes seem to have the edge over The Hives and Arcade Fire in terms of radio and TV airplay. I'm not a huge fan, though.

Since the dissolution of Soul Coughing and the castration of The Get Up Kids, I've been looking for a band I would deem the current Greatest Band in the World. I haven't found them yet.

Highlifeman21
09-30-2008, 04:47 PM
Great topic.

I'll have to think about this...

The Baumer
09-30-2008, 05:10 PM
To me the greatest band in the world is The National but I don't expect many people to come to my defense.

As far as merely popularity goes in the rock world, you'd have slim pickings between some decent but commercialized bands like Foo Fighters and Green Day. But no one really wants to hand over a title like this to bands whose best records are over 10 years old and have since been sullied by the subsequent releases of their recent marginalized, non-threatening albums. I like to think if you factor in influence, world wide popularity, and discount the need for the choice to be a big "broad", "commercial" band then I go with Radiohead. They're massively huge while still playing a non-commercial type of music. Their career output & its influence on modern rock is also something to consider. I'm sure there is a country band out there who is bigger but hey I'm going with Redszone's favorite electronic-rock-brit-pop band on this one.

vaticanplum
09-30-2008, 05:29 PM
I was going to say Radiohead too. They cross a lot of boundaries and appeal to a lot of different types of fans; they're massively influential on other musicians. They have staying appeal -- they've been around for 20 years (have been releasing records for 15) and can pretty much do what they want at this point. They sell out huge arenas. Their release of In Rainbows online was a pretty big statement in the music industry and may continue to have major repurcussions. Yes, other bands have done it, but not bands of that stature and not in such a high-profile way for a studio album.

Radiohead's timing has been good too. OK Computer was released in 1997, but they waited over three years to release the next album. That doesn't sound like a particularly long time now, but at the time the hype was really snowballing and OK Computer just seemed to build and build through those years. So they've released four albums, plus a handful of solo projects, in this decade. During this time they've also gotten pretty involved in international politics -- not to the level of someone like Bono, but enough that it's notable.

Not everybody likes them, but that's a question of taste and anyone would be hard-pressed to find a major band loved by most (I'm not a U2 fan really, but I don't question their being a SUPERBAND). I think of all bands this decade, this is the one that makes the case for having major musical influence while still being enormously popular. The White Stripes (whom I hate) would have had a case four or five years ago, but they've seriously dropped off and I haven't seen a lasting influence of their style on other musicians; bands tend to be veering more toward the theatrical than the garage. (And I'd argue that the White Stripes are hard to emulate musically -- not many bands can pull off the talented showman/guitarist and the charming-but-pretty-musically-limited rest of band angle.) The Arcade Fire are really good, but I don't think they've proven themselves lasting or prolific yet. Unless I'm missing something major, I can't really think of anybody else who's crossed that many boundaries and stayed there.

Couple of other artists who spring to mind who have done very well for themselves this decade regardless:
Dave Matthews -- not my cup of tea, and musically I don't think they really bring enough new to the table to influence a great number of other musicians, but there's no denying their popular appeal and staying power.
Pearl Jam -- they've continued to release good music this decade (some of their best, really) and are still both enormously popular and influential. Actually, I think Pearl Jam might have a case here if they hadn't had such a successful 1990s.
Ryan Adams -- definitely a dark horse, and he's not widely known enough to be considered for something like this. But I do give him props for having an insanely prolific, varied, and quality decade of music. Beck falls into this category too.
Wilco -- they've had a fantastic decade full of quality stuff, they've stretched themselves musically, and they've had a strong influence on the music industry. Musicans love them, but I don't have a handle on whether they're widely known enough to compete for a title like this.

What about someone like Timbaland? Danger Mouse? Not bands, but pretty influential this decade. Where do they fit into things?

That's all that comes to mind now. I reserve the right to add more later.

RichRed
09-30-2008, 05:35 PM
Arcade Fire was the first band that came to mind when I saw the title of this thread but it's hard to fight the argument for Radiohead.

M2
09-30-2008, 07:44 PM
To me the greatest band in the world is The National but I don't expect many people to come to my defense.

I love them, but they're probably a little TOO underground. Can they claim to have any sort of broad influence? One thing I'm hoping is that they allow the musical complexity they exhibit on stage to seep deeper into their next record.

Quick question about Radiohead, are they now six years past being the Greatest Band in the World? Maybe they've reclaimed the title with "In Rainbows", but does it stack up next to "Kid A", "OK Computer", "The Bends" or even "Pablo Honey" (somewhat derivative, but first class at it)? I haven't heard enough of it to weigh in on that subject. My only point would be that if the new disc doesn't rise to the heights of the band's previous efforts then it's "Some Girls" or "In Through the Out Door", a perfectly good record that doesn't quite get the band back to the top of the mountain.

Then again, if no one else is at the top of the mountain then does Radiohead hold the position by default? They could make a claim to a decade at the top (since "OK Computer") and you could even argue they served notice the first time everyone heard the guitar tic in "Creep".

vaticanplum
09-30-2008, 08:27 PM
Quick question about Radiohead, are they now six years past being the Greatest Band in the World? Maybe they've reclaimed the title with "In Rainbows", but does it stack up next to "Kid A", "OK Computer" or even "Pablo Honey" (somewhat derivative, but first class at it)? I haven't heard enough of it to weigh in on that subject. My only point would be that if the new disc doesn't rise to the heights of the band's previous efforts then it's "Some Girls" or "In Through the Out Door", a perfectly good record that doesn't quite get the band back to the top of the mountain.

It's a good question. It depends what you're looking for in this "title". In Rainbows really is one of their best albums, I think, and I love Amnesiac too. Hail to the Thief is good (my friend and I call it their "sexy" album), but not that innovative or memorable.

So musically, you have a point. But it's in this decade that they've really developed as an arena band. They were playing huge arenas in the late 90s after OK Computer, and even to a degree after Creep, but there was a sense that they were being paraded around by a record company and didn't really have control over it. I'd argue that Radiohead -- along with Pearl Jam -- is the one big band that in this decade has grabbed its career by the horns and done whatever they wanted with it. Probably not coincidentally, these are the two major bands who in this decade have made great use of the internet. Rather than fighting it like most record companies and bands did at the beginning, they totally embraced it. Radiohead's website has been meticulously well-kept and often very beautiful. They're an "arty" band to begin with -- they've been working with the same artist their whole career and their music is very associated with their artwork -- but they transposed this to the internet. They kept fans abreast of their work in the studio with a detailed diary. This all sounds kind of pretentious when I write it down, but this is a band that ran into the 21st century rather than being dragged into it kicking and screaming, and that as much as anything is why I think they're so important this decade.

I have followed them their entire career, and I can tell you that the crowd at a Radiohead show now is very different from a crowd in 2001. They made some of their best music in the mid-to-late 90s, but it wasn't until later that a lot of people began to hear it, and their use of the internet is part of that too (fans rabidly communicated, traded songs, put concerts on the internet, etc., and the band didn't fight it).

So I think that's a huge part of why they have been so important this decade. I don't feel like they peaked in 2000/2001; quite the contrary, they only seem to have grown. I'd tend to agree with you more if their music had obviously dropped off (Hail to the Thief is fine, but if they had released that again I would have a problem with them), but In Rainbows is just a beautiful album. Personal, original, stylized, and very interesting musically. It sounds like "classic Radiohead" while still sounding like nothing they've ever done. They pull instruments out of their butts that no other band of that level of popularity does. And their lyrics have gotten significantly less opaque, which in this case is a sign of maturity I think.

I just get the sense that their career this decade has been so much more their own than it was before, and that has already had and will continue to have a lasting effect on the music industry. They were very successful after OK Computer -- but they weren't quite as successful as they, by all rights, needed to be to take that much control of their career. But with all the new technology going on, nobody could tell them otherwise, and they ran with it. The fact that they happened to do it right, probably largely due to luck, is a big factor in their popularity and is going to have a big effect on other bands.

A good study in contrasts is Blur, I think. Musically, Blur may be a step down from Radiohead, but they've had remarkably similar careers musically. Blur churns out great album after great album, all of them original, and they make a point to veer in different directions and try new things musically. They're great live. They've had successful side projects just like Radiohead. They've been very interested in what artwork, for example, can add to their music. They've both had one enormous hit song worldwide. But Blur hasn't had nearly the career that Radiohead has had despite running neck and neck with them in the 90s, and excepting Song 2, they've barely registered outside of England despite, at times, relentless touring. I just don't think they handled their career in the same way, and it shows. (To a lesser degree, Supergrass -- a band that just keeps getting better and better -- can be a comparator too, although I'd argue that their music doesn't have the sweeping broad appeal that Radiohead's does nor do I think they ever really wanted such global success.)

I'm a big Radiohead fan, obviously. But I am trying to be fair in terms of popularity, lasting influence, and innovation in addition to just plain good music. They're just an incredibly complete band: great and innovative in the studio, phenomenal live, musically complex, technically competent, intelligent and incredibly emotional.

Now, if you asked me who has produced my favorite music in this decade, I'd say Ed Harcourt and be done with it. That kid just keeps churning it out and going all out. But he's not a blip of a blip of a blip in the music industry or the general public.

M2
09-30-2008, 08:44 PM
Couple of other artists who spring to mind who have done very well for themselves this decade regardless:
Dave Matthews -- not my cup of tea, and musically I don't think they really bring enough new to the table to influence a great number of other musicians, but there's no denying their popular appeal and staying power.
Pearl Jam -- they've continued to release good music this decade (some of their best, really) and are still both enormously popular and influential. Actually, I think Pearl Jam might have a case here if they hadn't had such a successful 1990s.
Ryan Adams -- definitely a dark horse, and he's not widely known enough to be considered for something like this. But I do give him props for having an insanely prolific, varied, and quality decade of music. Beck falls into this category too.
Wilco -- they've had a fantastic decade full of quality stuff, they've stretched themselves musically, and they've had a strong influence on the music industry. Musicans love them, but I don't have a handle on whether they're widely known enough to compete for a title like this.

What about someone like Timbaland? Danger Mouse? Not bands, but pretty influential this decade. Where do they fit into things?

That's all that comes to mind now. I reserve the right to add more later.

Wilco's an interesting contender. They've never put out a bad album, but I don't know that they're soared since "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" in 2002.

I liked what I heard of Pearl Jam's last album, though I'd list it with the Stones' "A Bigger Bang" and U2's "All That You Can't Leave Behind" as reminders of why they were a big band in the first place. Pearl Jam always struck me as a bit uneven to be top dog.

Matthews seems to be more about touring and cutting live records these days. His band has definitely become a perpetual motion machine. It can sell out tours from here to forever, but what's the last great studio record the band cut?

Danger Mouse can get some consideration for Gnarls Barkley I suppose. I love some of Gnarls singles, but are the entire discs up to snuff?

I wonder if The Killers or Franz Ferdinand will hit a homerun with their new releases and get themselves into this discussion.

redsfanmia
09-30-2008, 08:53 PM
This is an interesting topic and I wonder in this world of Hip Hop and cookie cutter pop songs if there is such a thing as the "biggest band in the world"? I am a fan of Radiohead and like in Rainbows but to me their best disc was the Bends and that was released in 95 I think. I think Oasis had the moniker of biggest band in the world for a year of so after Wonderwall hit.

I like the Killers so hopefull they can step it up and become the biggest band the world but I have my doubts that atleast in the near future a rock band will hold that title. I just hope a band like Nirvana comes out again and spawns rock revival so I can listen to new music again.

GAC
09-30-2008, 09:27 PM
Don't we first have to define what Rock n Roll is before we assign a crown? The definition seems to be constantly evolving anymore.

I remember when the Beatles were called a Pop band because of songs like I Want To Hold Your Hand and She Loves You. But I still love their renditions of You Really Got A Hold On Me, Roll Over Beethoven, and Money.

I'm currently reading the book "McCartney" by Christopher Sanford. I enjoyed the section where it talks of the Beatle's early relationship (influence) on the Stones, and especially Jagger and Richards who hung on Lennon and McCartney's shirt tails in utter awe of their song writing ability. In 1963 while working on "With The Beatles", John and Paul met up with Andrew Oldham (Stone's manager). They gave him a song "I Wanna Be Your Man", written in under 30 minutes and played for the Stones. The Beatles would later record the song with Ringo singing vocals.

Falls City Beer
09-30-2008, 09:28 PM
Radiohead: unlistenable.

I hate going on stuff like "influence" or "exposure." There's great, good, awful, then everything else. No one's made better music or written better songs over the last 12 years than David Berman. Contenders don't exist. I like other albums, bands, but I simply can't name a truly great band at the height of their powers right now.

SunDeck
09-30-2008, 09:30 PM
Very interesting, but I think there are no "great rock bands" anymore. That is not to say there isn't great music out there. On the contrary, I am happily finding more really good bands to listen to now than I ever have before. What's the difference? Well, back in the day, the music industry dictated much more clearly which bands we would listen to, whereas today they have much less control over our choices. It's a good thing, but I think it has ended the era when just a few bands would dominate the rock scene.

And besides, what is "rock" any more? To me, the word symbolizes more the era than the music. Don't get me wrong, there are some great, rockin' bands today. But I just don't think it's possible for any of them to reach the status of the rock bands from the 60's through the 80's. That money is going into manufacturing the next American Idol star instead.

vaticanplum
09-30-2008, 09:35 PM
Radiohead: unlistenable.

I hate going on stuff like "influence" or "exposure."

But you can't go on taste, not if you hope to have an objective argument. Or you can...but that isn't what the question asked. There's a difference between who is most important and who is the best (usually).

Redsfaithful
09-30-2008, 09:53 PM
I'm not even a fan, but I think you're dismissing Coldplay too quickly. I think it's probable that that's the first band most people are going to remember or bring up when they talk about this decade.

I think Baumer has a good point with Green Day and Foo Fighters as well. U2 has also had a pretty good decade for that matter.

In the end though, I think the idea that one band could loom over an entire decade (or even half a decade) might be over. Attention is so fragmented now.

Cyclone792
09-30-2008, 10:01 PM
Interesting question. The new stuff I tend to listen to are non-mainstream bands and singer/songwriters (or yet to be mainstream) who undoubtedly wouldn't fit in here.

That much being said, and this will probably draw some gasps from people who do not like their music, but I'd have to say that so far Linkin Park probably has to be considered somewhere.

I never thought Linkin Park would be anywhere as big as they've been, but they've been wildly popular with several albums this decade and also helped spawn a version of rock that has a little bit of hip hop mixed in it. Hybrid Theory is one of the few Diamond Albums that have been released since 2000 (10x platinum), and Meteora (4x platinum) was also a fine album. But the success combined with the new style of rock that includes a little bit of hip hop has taken off somewhat for them, and I can see hints of that new style in the last decade.

Of course, while I've never been to a Linkin Park concert, I've heard several people say they're rather disappointing as a live performance so that would probably drop some points there.

vaticanplum
09-30-2008, 10:11 PM
I'm not even a fan, but I think you're dismissing Coldplay too quickly. I think it's probable that that's the first band most people are going to remember or bring up when they talk about this decade.

I thought of Coldplay, but it seems to me that they dropped off significantly after A Rush of Blood to the Head (in every respect -- musicality, popularity, etc.) And I don't see other bands overtly emulating them. I could be wrong on that though.

Linkin Park is an interesting example of how things have become fragmented. I know they're wildly popular with a certain group of people -- and apparently a lot of them -- but I can sit here and say that, as a person who follows music with some gusto, I'm not sure I've ever heard a Linkin Park song in my life. I certainly couldn't recognize one. But there are people who might be able to say that about Radiohead.

Falls City Beer
09-30-2008, 10:23 PM
But you can't go on taste, not if you hope to have an objective argument. Or you can...but that isn't what the question asked. There's a difference between who is most important and who is the best (usually).

Who is best is all that matters. Otherwise you're arguing sales figures.

M2
09-30-2008, 10:31 PM
Very interesting, but I think there are no "great rock bands" anymore.

I tend to agree, but for a nearly opposite reason. IMO, the culture's gotten so disposable that few bands dare or even aspire to greatness.

If anything I'd say the music industry is forcing more down our throats than in the past. They've got ubiquitous marketing, intel on buyers, highly segmented markets. It's an endless cycle of: "Here, eat this. Now eat this. And if you liked that, eat this." All consumption, no digestion.

I'd argue that in the past artists got anointed not because we were forced to listen to them, but because they made music that compelled people to listen to it again and again, music that still resonates decades later. The record companies may have given those artists a big push, but that's not why those bands endured. I actually think it's harder these days for a band to make a broad splash given the compressed product cycles and industry celebrity fixation.

vaticanplum
09-30-2008, 10:31 PM
Who is best is all that matters. Otherwise you're arguing sales figures.

No, you're not. You're arguing a lot of things, a number of which I've stated in great detail. I have no idea where Radiohead stands in sales figures, and in terms of who is "best", I find them far more interesting the Silver Jews. "best" is taste and it's totally individual.

Cyclone792
09-30-2008, 10:32 PM
Very interesting, but I think there are no "great rock bands" anymore. That is not to say there isn't great music out there. On the contrary, I am happily finding more really good bands to listen to now than I ever have before. What's the difference? Well, back in the day, the music industry dictated much more clearly which bands we would listen to, whereas today they have much less control over our choices. It's a good thing, but I think it has ended the era when just a few bands would dominate the rock scene.

I think you might, and I'm certainly a classic example where the great rock bands I listen to all peaked in the 90s and the new stuff I listen to tends to fly well under the radar.

The early to mid 90s is an interesting period where it may be the last time where the music industry saw several great bands in their peak who all turned out several outstanding albums. Off the top of my head ...

Metallica - Metallica (Black Album)
Pearl Jam - Ten
Nirvana - Nevermind
Counting Crows - August & Everything After

Four bands, four albums, 43 million album copies sold, and a massive contingent of outstanding singles.


Linkin Park is an interesting example of how things have become fragmented. I know they're wildly popular with a certain group of people -- and apparently a lot of them -- but I can sit here and say that, as a person who follows music with some gusto, I'm not sure I've ever heard a Linkin Park song in my life. I certainly couldn't recognize one. But there are people who might be able to say that about Radiohead.

I'm sure you have, but if you aren't familiar with their stuff then it'd be difficult to recognize. My guess is you've heard each of the following songs at some point, some of these songs probably several times because they've dominated modern rock radio the last eight years:

Papercut
One Step Closer
Crawling
Runaway
In the End
Somewhere I Belong
Faint
Numb
Breaking the Habit
Lying From You
What I've Done
Shadow of the Day

*BaseClogger*
09-30-2008, 10:46 PM
The Red Hot Chili Peppers have returned to the top ever since Californication IMO...

M2
09-30-2008, 10:54 PM
I'm not even a fan, but I think you're dismissing Coldplay too quickly. I think it's probable that that's the first band most people are going to remember or bring up when they talk about this decade.

Personal bias here, but I find it hard to believe most people will even remember they bought a Coldplay disc five years after they did it. There's no question the band sells. It charts #1 across the globe and packs every venue it plays. I just put them in the Def Leppard category, only people are buying downers instead of uppers these days.


That much being said, and this will probably draw some gasps from people who do not like their music, but I'd have to say that so far Linkin Park probably has to be considered somewhere.

My sister came up with what I still believe is the finest dis of a band in history in regard to Linkin Park: 'N Sync with guitars.

Like vaticanplum, I do a fair bit of listening and I couldn't pick a Linkin Park song out of a lineup. I've heard some Linkin Park, consider them a Limp Bizkit derivative, but nothing that's ever stuck. They seem to specialize in overwrought middle class teen angst, mastering that on-the-edge-about-nothing feeling.

I don't dispute that they're a popular band, but popular does not automatically convey greatness.

15fan
09-30-2008, 10:57 PM
The Wiggles have dominated the decade at my house. ;)


But I just don't think it's possible for any of them to reach the status of the rock bands from the 60's through the 80's. That money is going into manufacturing the next American Idol star instead.

That was one of the points I was going to make. Part of me dies with each successive week that American Idol (and its ilk) are on tv drawing big viewing numbers. It's wrong on a variety of levels. I can't decide whether it's more damning that the American public is so dense that they think it's good entertainment, or that it's more damning that the TV folks can't come up with anything better to put on the tube.

We also now have a generation of people who know Ozzie Osbourne not from his musical career, but as the goofy & out-of-it dad from his TV show. Same thing with Run from Run DMC. Our generation knows him as a ground-breaking musician, but there's a whole new generation who knows him only as the dad on Run's House. The interest isn't so much in the music as it is in seeing the goofy/dysfunctional hijinks at casa de Ozzie, etc. "Entertainment" has been redefined.

Maybe it's not so much a band of the aughts as it is a specific performer. Though the timing doesn't quite line up cleanly with the decade beginning & end, I think guys like Eminem and Moby were there early in the time frame. Maybe now it's more of a Jay-Z / P Diddy / Kanye West type, if you're open to the possibility that hip-hop is to the aughts as rock was to the 60s-80s.

Betterread
09-30-2008, 11:16 PM
For me it was more of a progression - starting with the Who, then Led Zeppelin, then Pink Floyd, then the Ramones/Sex Pistols/Clash, then the Fall, then Sonic Youth, then Sebadoh/Dinosaur (jr.), then Nirvana. That was the end of the progression. For me, Nirvana ended the whole "important band" label by tearing apart the falseness of the need for Excess and the drive for "relevance" that drive the U2s, the Radioheads, etc of the world.

Redsfaithful
09-30-2008, 11:53 PM
Maybe now it's more of a Jay-Z / P Diddy / Kanye West type, if you're open to the possibility that hip-hop is to the aughts as rock was to the 60s-80s.

I think a pretty strong argument could be made for both Jay-Z and Kanye West, probably more so Jay-Z. But then are we including all music or just rock?

Things have changed so much. The best selling album of 2007 was basically (neo?)classical. I don't think any one group or artist has the kind of lock on the public's attention that an 80's U2 or a Nirvana had.

And M2 if you want a modern day Def Leppard you need to look at Nickelback. Chris Martin personally offends and irritates me, but I'd still put Coldplay a notch above that.

M2
10-01-2008, 12:20 AM
For me it was more of a progression - starting with the Who, then Led Zeppelin, then Pink Floyd, then the Ramones/Sex Pistols/Clash, then the Fall, then Sonic Youth, then Sebadoh/Dinosaur (jr.), then Nirvana. That was the end of the progression. For me, Nirvana ended the whole "important band" label by tearing apart the falseness of the need for Excess and the drive for "relevance" that drive the U2s, the Radioheads, etc of the world.

Fair criticism, but there's got to be a place for artistic ambition to succeed. Kurt Cobain took a big shot with "Nevermind". He knew it had the potential to be more than just some small, idiosyncratic record that was going to appeal to the folks on the Sub Pop mailing list. Then he discovered success brings a certain amount of excess with it no matter how hard you try to stay pure. I imagine it made his ambition feel like excess too.

Artists by nature seek to advance what can be done in their medium. They aspire to greatness. That's true of artists from Garrincha to Gaudi. If greatness is out of the question, is the art form dead?

BTW, I'm glad someone mentioned Pink Floyd, glaring omission from my initial post in this thread.

M2
10-01-2008, 12:21 AM
And M2 if you want a modern day Def Leppard you need to look at Nickelback.

I try to pretend that band doesn't exist.

*BaseClogger*
10-01-2008, 01:43 AM
My sister came up with what I still believe is the finest dis of a band in history in regard to Linkin Park: 'N Sync with guitars.

Like vaticanplum, I do a fair bit of listening and I couldn't pick a Linkin Park song out of a lineup. I've heard some Linkin Park, consider them a Limp Bizkit derivative, but nothing that's ever stuck. They seem to specialize in overwrought middle class teen angst, mastering that on-the-edge-about-nothing feeling.

I don't dispute that they're a popular band, but popular does not automatically convey greatness.

My take on this subject is that there are two things that make a great rock band: 1) song-writing 2) musicianship. I see Linkin Park as being a Type 1 band who can write songs like a pop artist but don't play great music. Other bands, like Dragonforce, are Type 2 bands in that they can play the crap out of their guitars but could use a little help writing a song. A great band is one who can write great lyrics and hooks while playing tough and wonderful music. Therefore, the World's greatest band would be the one who are made up of great musicians who write creative and innovative music while catching your attention with beautiful lyrics and melodies...

M2
10-01-2008, 01:55 AM
Therefore, the World's greatest band would be the one who are made up of great musicians who write creative and innovative music while catching your attention with beautiful lyrics and melodies...

Don't forget the shock and awe.

*BaseClogger*
10-01-2008, 02:13 AM
Don't forget the shock and awe.

Shock and awe translates into popularity...

cincyinco
10-01-2008, 02:42 AM
I'm sad it took nearly 3 pages to mention pink Floyd. Lasting? Doesn't get much more lasting than that. Influential? At the top of their game? For far more than the past decade.

Led zep was well ahead of their time. They were rocking harder than everyone, about 20 years early.

I love radiohead, they belong in the discussion for me. Same with the stones and the Beatles.

What about stevie ray Vaughan?

How about bo diddley?

The latter two certainly influenced their peers but are oft overlooked. They may not have had the same staying power though.

Today's Music? I don't know if there are clearly any top dogs, but there are some potential contenders.

The killers. Red hot chili peppers have revived themselves. Radiohead I would agree with. I'm absolutely sold on keane, a clever 3 piece with no guitarist. Their first 2 albums are simple yet complex, and haven't tailed off. For me, a bands sophomoric effort can fall flat a lot of the times.

Little known yet highly influential is DJ/producer and electronica artist sasha.

How about the underrated stone temple pilots? Their sound has evolved from album to album they've got a decent library of work.. And Scott weilands solo effort is a blast, yet little known. Not sure how influential they are though.

Alice In chains? Soundgarden?

Robin trower? Cream? How about Clapton for that matter?

I feel like I could go on and on.. This is a great topic, but may be entirely too subjective.

If I had to pick 1 band.. I'd still say Floyd. They have it all. The library of work, staying power, mass audience, longevity, influence.

SunDeck
10-01-2008, 07:00 AM
I tend to agree, but for a nearly opposite reason. IMO, the culture's gotten so disposable that few bands dare or even aspire to greatness.

If anything I'd say the music industry is forcing more down our throats than in the past. They've got ubiquitous marketing, intel on buyers, highly segmented markets. It's an endless cycle of: "Here, eat this. Now eat this. And if you liked that, eat this." All consumption, no digestion.

I'd argue that in the past artists got anointed not because we were forced to listen to them, but because they made music that compelled people to listen to it again and again, music that still resonates decades later. The record companies may have given those artists a big push, but that's not why those bands endured. I actually think it's harder these days for a band to make a broad splash given the compressed product cycles and industry celebrity fixation.

Very good points. I wonder if it also has something to do with Rock music today perhaps being less close to its origins (and having evolved into more than one form)? What the Beatles and the rest of the British invasion bands did was new and original and I think it carried into the 70s and "Rock" or maybe "Hard Rock" became a distinct form of its own. So, whereas the Beatles, early Kinks, early Who, the Turtles, Zombies, etc. had this somewhat softer, upbeat musical personality, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and later Who all developed a harder edge with more distortion (and in LZ and the Who's case, the classic rock lead singer voice).

But those two eras seem distinctly different to me and we all can think of which bands fit into each one. And each of those eras represents some "alternative" the the previous dominant musical genre. For instance, the harder rock of the late sixties and early seventies has always seemed like a counter to the pop infused melodies of the early British invasion.

To me, once you get to the eighties, the era of the "Rock Band" ends and it fractures into a few newer genres. Punk emerged as the new answer to mainstream Rock music. However, it did not take over as Rock did in the decade before, but instead remained an "alternative" choice. In fact, I suppose it even started the whole alternative music scene, which then ultimately gave us those (albeit short lived) "greatest bands of the 90's- Nirvana, Pearl Jam and other "Grunge bands". That genre, and others that came out of the punk movement all rock just as hard and just as well as "Rock" did in the 70s, and I still think of Led Zeppelin as a grandfather to Nirvana. But because "Rock" was the only game in town in the 70s, so to speak, I think it was able to produce these epic bands.

Ltlabner
10-01-2008, 07:12 AM
Holy crap.

I just realized that I am totally unaware of any new music in the last 5 years, maybe 10.

What's worse, I don't really care.

Before I'd be up-to-date on all things music, big and small acts, commerical mega-hits and underground bootlegs. I'd read books on bands. Know what tour they were on by what they were wearing on stages/equipment. Memorize song-lists by tour. On and on.

Now....I just don't care. I checked out my ipod and while I have some new songs on there, 95% of them are classics from the day. The few new songs on there are mostly from RZ recomendations. But overall, I'm happy just listening to what I already know, and most times I have to be in the mood to listen to music. I guess my interests have moved on to other things.

What the hell happened?

Cyclone792
10-01-2008, 07:50 AM
My sister came up with what I still believe is the finest dis of a band in history in regard to Linkin Park: 'N Sync with guitars.

Like vaticanplum, I do a fair bit of listening and I couldn't pick a Linkin Park song out of a lineup. I've heard some Linkin Park, consider them a Limp Bizkit derivative, but nothing that's ever stuck. They seem to specialize in overwrought middle class teen angst, mastering that on-the-edge-about-nothing feeling.

I don't dispute that they're a popular band, but popular does not automatically convey greatness.

I actually think that description aptly fits Limp Bizkit, but Linkin Park deserves a bit more credit than that. They did originate as a Limp Bizkit derivative, but Limp showed up for about two or three years and then disappeared as quickly as they appeared once people realized Fred Durst was an idiot.

Linkin Park, OTOH, has stuck around for eight years now and have evolved quite a bit beyond their initial album, albeit that evolution is still ongoing and it may or may not work. I won't argue that the stuff they've produced to date conveys greatness, but I do believe they have a chance to possibly acclaim that feat in the next few years. Their latest album is quite a bit different than their earlier stuff, which is what you seem to be referring to in specializing in middle class teen angst. While their latest album wasn't hugely popular, it was still fairly successful, and I also suspect that their upcoming album they plan to release in the next year or so will continue to evolve well beyond what they were earlier in the decade.

If that evolution continues to happen and ultimately works, they'll deserve credit. If not, then they'll probably go by the wayside similar to a longer lasting Limp Bizkit. But I don't think it's a definite that they're at that point yet.

nate
10-01-2008, 08:01 AM
What the hell happened?

No one's writing timeless songs anymore.

gonelong
10-01-2008, 08:30 AM
Personal bias here, but I find it hard to believe most people will even remember they bought a Coldplay disc five years after they did it. There's no question the band sells. It charts #1 across the globe and packs every venue it plays. I just put them in the Def Leppard category, only people are buying downers instead of uppers these days.

Def Leppard is one of my favorite "cotton candy" bands. You can't eat it all the time, but as an occasional treat, I really like it. Too much sugar? Sure, but sometimes that's the point.

The 5 year old has taking a liking to John Denver, not even sure where he heard it first, but yesterday we were both belting out Rocky Mountain High in the car. Too much fun. :D The Mrs. has exposed him to the Beatles, which he has also taken quite a shine to.

As far as I know no new music has been made since the early 90's ... I just moved on to other interests having built up a large enough library to satisfy my needs. I've heard of most of the groups being discussed, but couldn't match a song to any of them. While I am sure that is hardly unique for someone in my age and lifestyle (38, married with kid) it also leads me to believe that there probably isn't a "Band of the aughts" to be had if a guy like me can't even connect on any of these bands. That kind of band would demand being noticed.

GL

Chip R
10-01-2008, 09:16 AM
I'd have to go with Radiohead. I'm a casual observer of the modern music scene so I haven't heard of most of these bands you guys are talking about. But I have heard of Radiohead so if someone like me has heard of them, they have to be pretty influential.

As for my personal choice among these groups, I'd go with Wilco because that's the kind of music I have gravitated to but they aren't mainstream enough to be considered for the title of Best Band of the Aughts.

Yachtzee
10-01-2008, 09:18 AM
I think we're in a period now similar to that of the late '80s. While a number of great bands were putting out great albums in the late '80s, notably The Pixies and Sonic Youth, the era was dominated commercially by overproduced fluffy hair bands that claimed to be "metal" but were really just hard rock pop bands with images carefully cultivated by the record companies to appeal to teenagers. While the Pixies and Sonic Youth were unable to rise to the top of the charts, they did produce a number of albums that influenced the next wave of great music. Bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and Smashing Pumpkins followed trail blazed by the Pixies, Sonic Youth, and other bands like Husker Du and The Replacements. I think in the next few years, we might see great bands rise up to take the place of current overly angst-ridden chart toppers like Linkin Park and My Chemical Romance. These bands might be influenced by acts like Radiohead, the Arcade Fire, the Decembrists, the Shins and other great acts that lack huge mainstream success beyond a single or two.

westofyou
10-01-2008, 09:22 AM
I try to pretend that band doesn't exist.

No doubt..

Band of the last ten years?

Wilco..... but are they the band of the aughts?

Probably not accessible enough, from what I see the singer songwriter style is back heavily and my summation is it's a lot weaker than the 70's surge in that genre.

But the "twee" style is a big player in the scene right now, bands like The Shins celebrate in it, other bands like The Hold Steady throw beer on it.

*BaseClogger*
10-01-2008, 09:33 AM
No one's writing timeless songs anymore.

Or you guys are getting old! :D

M2
10-01-2008, 09:40 AM
Shock and awe translates into popularity...

Not necessarily. I was just pointing out that there's a beauty to bombast too. To the primitive ear, "Rock Around the Clock" sounded like mayhem on wax.

nate
10-01-2008, 10:11 AM
Or you guys are getting old! :D

Get off my lawn!

:cool:

nate
10-01-2008, 10:25 AM
If we're talking "greatest rock band" of the aughts (as the title of the thread says) I simply don't see or hear a modern band that competes with:

The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
The Who
U2
Aerosmith
AC/DC
Springsteen

People still want to hear "Blackbird" or "Satisfaction" or "Rock & Roll" even "Walk This Way." I can't even name an Oasis song off the top of my head. I'm not saying all the indy bands that people are into are bad but they don't have the "reach" of these other groups.

Who is writing the great songs that will be "classic rock" in 30 years?

My guess is, those stations (if they exist) will still be playing "Kashmir."

Johnny Footstool
10-01-2008, 10:36 AM
Don't forget the shock and awe.

Isn't that basically the essence of rock and/or roll?

Johnny Footstool
10-01-2008, 10:40 AM
Holy crap.

I just realized that I am totally unaware of any new music in the last 5 years, maybe 10.

What's worse, I don't really care.

Before I'd be up-to-date on all things music, big and small acts, commerical mega-hits and underground bootlegs. I'd read books on bands. Know what tour they were on by what they were wearing on stages/equipment. Memorize song-lists by tour. On and on.

Now....I just don't care. I checked out my ipod and while I have some new songs on there, 95% of them are classics from the day. The few new songs on there are mostly from RZ recomendations. But overall, I'm happy just listening to what I already know, and most times I have to be in the mood to listen to music. I guess my interests have moved on to other things.

What the hell happened?

Homer Simpson syndrome.

"I used to rock 'n' roll all night, and party ev-er-y day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky."

M2
10-01-2008, 10:50 AM
Isn't that basically the essence of rock and/or roll?

That's what I'm saying. It's an art form dedicated to finding new ways to howl at the moon.

*BaseClogger*
10-01-2008, 12:12 PM
If we're talking "greatest rock band" of the aughts (as the title of the thread says) I simply don't see or hear a modern band that competes with:

The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
The Who
U2
Aerosmith
AC/DC
Springsteen

People still want to hear "Blackbird" or "Satisfaction" or "Rock & Roll" even "Walk This Way." I can't even name an Oasis song off the top of my head. I'm not saying all the indy bands that people are into are bad but they don't have the "reach" of these other groups.

Who is writing the great songs that will be "classic rock" in 30 years?

My guess is, those stations (if they exist) will still be playing "Kashmir."

Nirvana.

I think Green Day was pretty close with American Idiot, they would play Boulevard of Broken Dreams and Wake Me Up When September Ends on my mom's soft rock radio station. The Chili Peppers should have gotten more attention with Stadium Arcadium, but it was still not embraced by the main stream music stations the way Green Day had been. The Smashing Pumpkins and blink 182 had there time, and Weezer continues to draw. I think the Foo Fighters and 3 Doors Down have the potential to release a great album and get close to this status as well. Although I don't think any of these modern bands can ever reach the heights of the others listed because rock has taken a back seat to other music genres, these bands are as close as it gets today IMO...

bucksfan
10-01-2008, 12:16 PM
Holy crap.

I just realized that I am totally unaware of any new music in the last 5 years, maybe 10.

What's worse, I don't really care.

Before I'd be up-to-date on all things music, big and small acts, commerical mega-hits and underground bootlegs. I'd read books on bands. Know what tour they were on by what they were wearing on stages/equipment. Memorize song-lists by tour. On and on.

Now....I just don't care. I checked out my ipod and while I have some new songs on there, 95% of them are classics from the day. The few new songs on there are mostly from RZ recomendations. But overall, I'm happy just listening to what I already know, and most times I have to be in the mood to listen to music. I guess my interests have moved on to other things.

What the hell happened?


I've been fighting that too. Years ago, my wife and I both used to be really into all the new music out there. Among our friends we were the people that had all the CDs no one else had even heard of, and we also had much wider ranging tastes than most of our friends. But now, I really tend to find myself where you are, LA, but I am not necessarily content to be there.

Our efforts to avoid this rut have been buoyed by XM radio to some extent. Now granted we are not going to pursue this with anywhere near the gusto of our earlier days as we have our daughter and several other activities and priorities. But we want to stay in touch, at least in some parts, and especially with the types of music that we find appealing. For example, I likely wouldn't be able to pick out a Jay Z song from a group of similar-style artists' songs, but that also probably would have been the case had he been present back in our more voracious music comsumption days.

Over the past 10 years I have found myself gravitating to more of the singer-songwriter and alt-country genres, but I still love me some rock'n'roll in all stripes too. I get anything Todd Snider throws out there and play it to death, but am also having some fun listening to the Killers, etc. We got Radiohead's Pablo Honey for Creep back in the day, and we just personally didn't care for some of their initial follow-ups so we never really pursued them after that. So I'm trying, within limits. I know there's tons of stuff out there I'd like. But one a given day you may see my 6-disc changer with nothing newer than 1995 in it (with the exception of my favorite artists who continue to make music) - and that I am trying to change.

With all that, I have no clue who could truly be the aught's answer to the Stones, AC/DC, or Beatles...and IMO that is my own fault. I honestly wish I could offer some reasonable choices based on what I have heard, but I have limited myself over the past few years, and it shows...

bucksfan
10-01-2008, 12:21 PM
Nirvana.

I think Green Day was pretty close with American Idiot, they would play Boulevard of Broken Dreams on my mom's soft rock radio station. The Chili Peppers should have gotten more attention with Stadium Arcadium, but it was still not embraced by the main stream music stations the way Green Day had been. The Smashing Pumpkins and blink 182 had there time, and Weezer continues to draw. I think the Foo Fighters and 3 Doors Down have the potential to release a great album and get close to this status as well. Although I don't think any of these modern bands can ever reach the heights of the others listed because rock has taken a back seat to other music genres, these bands are as close as it gets today IMO...

In this you mention 3 of the "larger-appeal" bands I really appreciate : Nirvana (they were a favorite of mine from day one), Green Day (to a slightly lesser extent), and probably most relevantly the Chili's (that's the last concert we've been to). Foo Fighters have not drawn me in completely yet. That's where I think I stopped being even somewhat current.

vaticanplum
10-01-2008, 12:44 PM
Great discussion here, I'm really enjoying it.


That was one of the points I was going to make. Part of me dies with each successive week that American Idol (and its ilk) are on tv drawing big viewing numbers. It's wrong on a variety of levels. I can't decide whether it's more damning that the American public is so dense that they think it's good entertainment, or that it's more damning that the TV folks can't come up with anything better to put on the tube.

On a side note to this discussion, I've seen maybe half of one episode of American Idol about five years ago. That said, I do hold the strong belief that this is the one reality competition that actually serves its competitors in a long-lasting career sense. Shows like Project Runway and Top Chef are much better shows and their competitors are stronger in their fields (they're trained and experienced professionals, as opposed to the contestants on Idol whom I gather are basically music business-virgin kids). But American Idol winners walk away with a record deal and enough exposure that I believe they're given some control over their careers. At least, that's the way it seems to me, with the slight variety of styles I see in their winners. And I *know* who the winners are without even watching the show. That's a success for them.

The other reality competitions seem to be about the spectacle. The winners of Top Chef and Project Runway walk away with $100,000 to start their own business. Frankly, between paying business associates, purchasing materials, renting space, and stiff industry competition (not to mention finding a way to live), $100K isn't enough to really do that successfully, and I suspect a lot of those winners will fade into obscurity. It's fun as a competition and it's entertaining television, but it's not a springboard to a career.

Now, whether this is good for music is a separate argument. But the music industry has been spewing out packaged, targeted crap since its inception. We can talk all we want about the quality from decades ago being better, but I think that's some pretty rose-colored hindsight. Quality bands age better with time and flashes in the pan fade from our memories. But while they exist, those flashes rake in enough cash to hold up some of the better artists who can't afford to do so themselves. That's why I have no problem with American Idol. People who are looking for deeper, more quality music will find it; in fact they'll have an easier time finding it now than they ever have. If pre-packaged crap is what everybody else wants to listen to and pay for, then let them have at it. This is nothing new. It just has more opportunity to cross media now, which is a natural thing in this increasingly media-based society.

SunDeck
10-01-2008, 01:18 PM
You know what, it just occurred to me that Rock music existed as a definitive alternative to something else, something that kids could listen to as a way to define themselves as being different than their parents. Yeah, I know- duh. But it got me thinking about the progression of alternatives.

Rockabilly and "rock and roll" were alternatives to the dominant popular music of the 40s and 50s.
The British invasion was an alternative to the rock and roll of the 50s.
Folk and blues inspired Rock was an alternative to the pop sound of the British Invasion.
Rock remained an alternative to pop and later disco.
"Hard Rock" was an alternative, harder edged answer to Rock.
Heavy Metal was an alternative to both.
Punk was an alternative to everything.
You get the point- it just makes me wonder what the present day alternative is? I am apt to think there is little chance of of any present day alternatives achieving the same levels of popularity as Rock did back in the day, primarily because of the way music is organized and available. People can customize their own listening far more easily than they could thirty years ago. And they have more ways to opt out of the crap being manufactured by the marketers and branders of the music industry.

I am enjoying this thread a lot. It's just like high school, discussing music with my friends.
Without the bong hits, of course.

Johnny Footstool
10-01-2008, 03:02 PM
You get the point- it just makes me wonder what the present day alternative is?

Angry, mopey alternative belongs to those of us who came of age in the '90s. The modern alternative is the "twee" movement (if that's what you call it) already mentioned. And it's already generating backlash in the form of back-to-roots hard rock (Airbourne, Buck Cherry).

SunDeck
10-01-2008, 03:33 PM
And it's already generating backlash in the form of back-to-roots hard rock (Airbourne, Buck Cherry).

It's beginning to remind me of this:



BRIAN:
What?
REG:
Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS:
Wankers.

Caveat Emperor
10-01-2008, 04:19 PM
Matthews seems to be more about touring and cutting live records these days. His band has definitely become a perpetual motion machine. It can sell out tours from here to forever, but what's the last great studio record the band cut?

They've only released 3 albums in the "aughts" --

Everyday (2001)
Busted Stuff (2002 -- most tracks actually from a 2000 studio session)
Stand Up (2005)

And, if you ask any DMB fan to rank the band's discography, you'd be hard pressed to find many (if any) that would put any of those three ahead of the work they did in the 90s on Before These Crowded Streets, Crash, and Under the Table and Dreaming. Their songs that are still in radio-rotation on Adult Contemporary and Mix-Rock format stations are all from those first three albums, the lone exception being "The Space Between" from Everyday. The other main singles ("I Did It", "Where Are You Going", "Grey Street", and "American Baby") fell from rotation shortly after the albums were released.

Having said that, they've got a new album set to release in early-'09 which, if it's back on par with their earlier stuff, could make them a serious entrant into this debate.

M2
10-01-2008, 04:44 PM
They've only released 3 albums in the "aughts" --

Everyday (2001)
Busted Stuff (2002 -- most tracks actually from a 2000 studio session)
Stand Up (2005)

And, if you ask any DMB fan to rank the band's discography, you'd be hard pressed to find many (if any) that would put any of those three ahead of the work they did in the 90s on Before These Crowded Streets, Crash, and Under the Table and Dreaming. Their songs that are still in radio-rotation on Adult Contemporary and Mix-Rock format stations are all from those first three albums, the lone exception being "The Space Between" from Everyday. The other main singles ("I Did It", "Where Are You Going", "Grey Street", and "American Baby") fell from rotation shortly after the albums were released.

Having said that, they've got a new album set to release in early-'09 which, if it's back on par with their earlier stuff, could make them a serious entrant into this debate.

I suspected that was the case. DMB's mostly off my radar, but I figured that if they were putting together some great new stuff it would be heavy rotation all over the place.

IMO, in order to get into the Greatest Band mix they'd either need to be working on a major streak (not the case) or the new album has to be their best, something that blows even the non-believers away. Of course, the problem with that is the band stands to upset its core audience if it gets too ambitious and they're on a very comfortable gravy train. My guess is you'll see them play to their base.

klw
10-01-2008, 04:45 PM
If we're talking "greatest rock band" of the aughts (as the title of the thread says) I simply don't see or hear a modern band that competes with:

The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
The Who
U2
Aerosmith
AC/DC
Springsteen

People still want to hear "Blackbird" or "Satisfaction" or "Rock & Roll" even "Walk This Way." I can't even name an Oasis song off the top of my head. I'm not saying all the indy bands that people are into are bad but they don't have the "reach" of these other groups.

Who is writing the great songs that will be "classic rock" in 30 years?

My guess is, those stations (if they exist) will still be playing "Kashmir."

Well in your group both U2 and Springsteen are continuing to issue good and great work and still put on amazing shows. Have they actually relinquished the title?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtz7q5l5Ll4

Razor Shines
10-01-2008, 04:51 PM
It took four pages for someone to mention the Jonas Brothers? I think if they crank out another disc like their last one you have to put them right up there with Fall Out Boy.

vaticanplum
10-01-2008, 04:55 PM
It took four pages for someone to mention the Jonas Brothers? I think if they crank out another disc like their last one you have to put them right up there with Fall Out Boy.

My 14-year-old cousin, who happens to be the author of the soon-to-be-breakout hit book, Joe Jonas is Amazing, would concur with you.

vaticanplum
10-01-2008, 05:00 PM
IMO, in order to get into the Greatest Band mix they'd either need to be working on a major streak (not the case) or the new album has to be their best, something that blows even the non-believers away. Of course, the problem with that is the band stands to upset its core audience if it gets too ambitious and they're on a very comfortable gravy train. My guess is you'll see them play to their base.

I also don't know how much they influence other musicians (which I hold as a criterion), though that would probably be off my radar as well. The band's been around long enough for their influence to have circled around again musically...are there any DMB knockoffs of substance? Arcade Fire hasn't had nearly the success that the Dave Matthews Band has, and I don't think they're anywhere near something like this title yet, but I can say pretty confidently that they're going to affect the direction of music at least slightly.

Roy Tucker
10-01-2008, 05:11 PM
My 14-year-old cousin, who happens to be the author of the soon-to-be-breakout hit book, Joe Jonas is Amazing, would concur with you.

My 15 yr. old daughter put the latest Jonas Bros. CD in car stereo and I said "I didn't know you liked Big Star". Those boys are pretty darn good.

I suffer from the Homer Simpson syndrome as well. We started having children and my Rob Gordon love of music got pushed aside.

M2
10-01-2008, 07:16 PM
My 15 yr. old daughter put the latest Jonas Bros. CD in car stereo and I said "I didn't know you liked Big Star".

Children by the millions ...

paintmered
10-01-2008, 07:37 PM
The band's been around long enough for their influence to have circled around again musically...are there any DMB knockoffs of substance?

I'd argue that O.A.R. is a DMB knockoff of substance prior to Stories of a Stranger. They don't have the mainstream appeal of DMB, but they successfully grew from a grassroots following without being propped up by a label. However, their last two albums are a departure of what made them popular. The temptation to make radio-friendly pop-rock does in another band...

westofyou
10-01-2008, 07:48 PM
Children by the millions ...

I'm in love.. what's that song?

Falls City Beer
10-01-2008, 07:50 PM
No, you're not. You're arguing a lot of things, a number of which I've stated in great detail. I have no idea where Radiohead stands in sales figures, and in terms of who is "best", I find them far more interesting the Silver Jews. "best" is taste and it's totally individual.

It really is a sales figure discussion though. What all of these bands have in common--bands labeled as "bands of the decade"--is enormous sales figures. Without those sales figures, you don't end up in the discussion of "bands of the decade." Once you've passed that benchmark of sales, it becomes a nebulous discussion of "influence" (which by the way is seldom felt till years later, if ever). So what next? Exposure in various media? I don't know.

My criterion? And unbroken string of classics over a 10 year period.

On a separate note, whoever it was that said there won't be a "band of the aughts" because there's no longer record label hegemony is pretty well dead on.

GAC
10-01-2008, 08:53 PM
Or you guys are getting old! :D

I remember when this album was released.... :cool:

http://www.theavanti.com/images/meet_beatles.jpg

guttle11
10-01-2008, 09:02 PM
I think we can all agree that Good Charlotte is not in the running. Really, that's all that's necessary.

nate
10-01-2008, 09:25 PM
My criterion? And unbroken string of classics over a 10 year period.

This is what I'm saying.

I'd just add that a "band of the decade" also puts on legendary concerts. I mean, isn't playing kick ass live shows what "rock" is all about?

If not, what is it?

Alan Parsons?

Falls City Beer
10-01-2008, 09:32 PM
This is what I'm saying.

I'd just add that a "band of the decade" also puts on legendary concerts. I mean, isn't playing kick ass live shows what "rock" is all about?

If not, what is it?

Alan Parsons?

A startlingly high number of things boil down to Alan Parsons and his Project.

Stephenk29
10-01-2008, 11:24 PM
I'm personally biased because Linkin Park would be my favorite band, but they have sold millions upon millions of albums. Although they might not be everyone's favorite band. I know almost everyone (my age at least) knows several of their songs word for word. At least it seems that way at least. Even one of my co workers has some of the CDs playing throughout the day, and he's into his early 30s.

cincyinco
10-02-2008, 05:44 AM
You know something funny... I hadn't read the rest of this thread since I posted last, and while reading I thought to myself "what about Alan parsons?"

Excellent call nate! Legendary.

As for the direction music seems to be taking today? The new "rock" if you will? I think we are seeing s move to an electronic(ie "techno") sound that is merging with rock. Electronica is invading our everday lives more and more... From clubs to TV commercials to more mainstream music. And I don't mean cheesey 80's synth stuff. Bands like Lincoln park- who I'm not a fan of btw - and in particular incubus have a turntablist as part of the core of their music. Bands such as your Vegas and the killers are pushing an electronica backed sound. Maybe its my background as a DJ, a mixologist if you will, but I see electronic music everywhere more and more. Hate it or love it, I don't care, but I guarantee you, most of us here the genre of electronica at least once a day if not more. And its crossing over into mainstream rock. Shoot, even the opening parade of the Greece Olympics featured DJ Tiesto playing the whole time, the first time a DJ had ever done so.. 4 hours of blisstering beats!.

I also feel there is a 2nd british invasion on the horizon. Snow patrol, the kooks, keane, bloc party, etc are high on my list right now and have been for some time. Of course, radiohead would probably be listed as an influence for almost all of the above.. But they're all unique in their own right.

For all those former "rockers" who just can't get past 95 in their collection.. I urge you to get out and discover. I, like you, just lost taste for music about the year 2000. Lots of the new music then, sounded stale, cookie cutter, bland... To me anyway.. Its where and how I developed my love for techno. For a good 5 or 6 years its about all I listened too. It was fresh and exciting, something rock and roll wasn't, at least to me.

Not sure what got me to go back, but I've found there to be some awesome new bands out there, some that have really given me hope about music again.. Bands I feel excited about...like I did when I was a teenager... I can't say I agree with everyone's suggestions on here(wilcos? Really? I don't get the love..that's not to say I don't respect others tastes.. One of the best threads on here is " what are you listening too"), but its great to be enthused about music again, especially rock.. My roots.. Because I thought I'd lost that love forever.. I hope this thread inspires some to dig in some crates for those new tunes.. This audiophile has found his again, and I gotta say... Damn it feels good.

nate
10-02-2008, 09:43 AM
You know something funny... I hadn't read the rest of this thread since I posted last, and while reading I thought to myself "what about Alan parsons?"

Excellent call nate! Legendary.

Heh, thanks!


For all those former "rockers" who just can't get past 95 in their collection.. I urge you to get out and discover. I, like you, just lost taste for music about the year 2000. Lots of the new music then, sounded stale, cookie cutter, bland... To me anyway.. Its where and how I developed my love for techno. For a good 5 or 6 years its about all I listened too. It was fresh and exciting, something rock and roll wasn't, at least to me.

I know what you're saying, although for me, it's more like 75 (heh!). However, I think the point that I'm making (and maybe FCB is making) is that if there is a "WORLD'S GREATEST ROCK BAND" out there right now, we wouldn't have to search to find it. It will have found us.

klw
10-02-2008, 10:17 AM
I also feel there is a 2nd british invasion on the horizon. .


Wouldn't this actually be around the 4th or 5th British invasion?

TRF
10-02-2008, 11:33 AM
linkin park couldn't carry POD's jock.


That said, The Cure was vastly underrated. Disintigration is the greatest album ever. (South Park reference. :) )

Sarah McLachlan has been quietly very influential. She was also one of the first artists I played as a dj in college. Touch is a great cd.

DMB makes me want to wretch. violently.

I'm a huge Beck fan too.

vaticanplum
10-02-2008, 11:41 AM
My criterion? And unbroken string of classics over a 10 year period.

I think there are maybe two bands who meet that in history. All the rest had some clunkers or their "classics" overlap too much against taste for it really to be a subjective argument.

My impression is that when we're talking about a band in a specific time frame, the time and environment must be considered, and that, for better or worse, involves more than just music (even though the music is by far the most important thing).

The Operator
10-02-2008, 11:44 AM
Therefore, the World's greatest band would be the one who are made up of great musicians who write creative and innovative music while catching your attention with beautiful lyrics and melodies...Look no further than...

Queens Of The Stone Age

Johnny Footstool
10-02-2008, 11:51 AM
I think there are maybe two bands who meet that in history. All the rest had some clunkers or their "classics" overlap too much against taste for it really to be a subjective argument.



Every band has a "Magical Mystery Tour" or a "Rattle and Hum" in its catalog.

Johnny Footstool
10-02-2008, 11:54 AM
Look no further than...

Queens Of The Stone Age

Good choice. Not quite the mass appeal of some of the bands mentioned, but an excellent example of a modern hard rock band. Smart lyrics, stunning musicianship, and fantastic songs.

Strikes Out Looking
10-02-2008, 12:01 PM
I'd argue that O.A.R. is a DMB knockoff of substance prior to Stories of a Stranger. They don't have the mainstream appeal of DMB, but they successfully grew from a grassroots following without being propped up by a label. However, their last two albums are a departure of what made them popular. The temptation to make radio-friendly pop-rock does in another band...

And they are from my neighborhood!

As to the band of the aughts, it's a shame that the music industry has gotten so AmericanIdoledhiphopped so that we can't even figure out the top contenders. I'm still listening to stuff I listened to 20 years ago with a few new additons once in awhile. I have no idea who the band of the aughts is, but I do know we need something/someone to jumpstart rock and roll.

SunDeck
10-02-2008, 12:06 PM
For all those former "rockers" who just can't get past 95 in their collection.. I urge you to get out and discover. I, like you, just lost taste for music about the year 2000. Lots of the new music then, sounded stale, cookie cutter, bland... To me anyway.. Its where and how I developed my love for techno. For a good 5 or 6 years its about all I listened too. It was fresh and exciting, something rock and roll wasn't, at least to me.



I was with you there until the techno part. But then my techno experience is based upon living in Germany in the 80s. :)

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-04-01/cover_story-2.jpg

ochre
10-02-2008, 01:21 PM
Do Korn, or tool belong in this discussion?

Personally I think they do.

pahster
10-02-2008, 02:43 PM
Do Korn, or tool belong in this discussion?

Personally I think they do.

I think Tool merits discussion, though I much prefer A Perfect Circle. Korn? Meh. I'd rather talk Staind.

If we expand the discussion beyond rock, how about Outkast? Speakerboxx/The Love Below was great. The Love Below is one of my favorite albums of all time and I don't even like hip hop.

M2
10-02-2008, 04:13 PM
Outkast crossed my mind, but it's been five years since they put out a new record. They very well might have held the title during the first half of this decade.

Tool, while not my cup of tea, definitely belongs in the discussion. From what I understand, can't say for sure because I don't their stuff that well, Korn been slumping with its past few releases, no?

Another band that probably deserves a mention, but likely is past its heights, is Weezer. I'm sure that'll make a few heads explode. Weezer seems to have that effect on some people.

cincyinco
10-02-2008, 04:15 PM
Heh, thanks!

I know what you're saying, although for me, it's more like 75 (heh!). However, I think the point that I'm making (and maybe FCB is making) is that if there is a "WORLD'S GREATEST ROCK BAND" out there right now, we wouldn't have to search to find it. It will have found us.

I know what you mean, and I couldn't agree more. I guess thats not what I was trying to say.. I just see a lot of potential.. music is exciting again IMO, if you stick your nose in a crate and dig a little bit. I honestly couldn't feel I felt that way in long time. But I'm not trying to say there is def. a world's greatest rock band at the moment. I'd agree, that if there is one.. its still one of the legends from yesteryear. Floyd, Zep, the Stones.. The Beatles are back at the forefront with their "Love" exposure, if they even ever left.

guttle11
10-02-2008, 04:21 PM
Outkast crossed my mind, but it's been five years since they put out a new record. They very well might have held the title during the first half of this decade.

Tool, while not my cup of tea, definitely belongs in the discussion. From what I understand, can't say for sure because I don't their stuff that well, Korn been slumping with its past few releases, no?

Another band that probably deserves a mention, but likely is past its heights, is Weezer. I'm sure that'll make a few heads explode. Weezer seems to have that effect on some people.

I'd agree. The newer stuff is more outwardly pop than the "Is it pop, ironic, or both?" Cuomo was all about early on. Still good music. Better than the vast majority of new music out today.

*BaseClogger*
10-02-2008, 04:30 PM
Tool rocks, but I don't think they are nearly mainstream enough. You can't even get their songs on iTunes...

Roy Tucker
10-02-2008, 04:31 PM
Music these days is like going to the grocery store for Cheerios.

It used to be just plain Cheerios.

Now, you go look at the cereal aisle and there is honey nut, berry burst, yogurt burst, multigrain, fruity, frosty, little o, big o, breakfast bars with cheerios, cheerio classic, cheerios out the wazoo, blah blah blah, ad infinitum....

With so many options, your brain tharns over from all the choices.

cincyinco
10-02-2008, 04:55 PM
Wouldn't this actually be around the 4th or 5th British invasion?


:shrug:

I dont know, you tell me.. please enlighten me... I dont think there's ever really been another like the Beatles, Kinks, Zep, Floyd, Who, etc. To me, I group them all together. There's been other UK bands that have been hits.. see u2, the Cure, radio head.. maybe you consider punk? i dont know.. But I dont know if theres every been another invasion.

westofyou
10-02-2008, 05:26 PM
:shrug:

I dont know, you tell me.. please enlighten me... I dont think there's ever really been another like the Beatles, Kinks, Zep, Floyd, Who, etc. To me, I group them all together. There's been other UK bands that have been hits.. see u2, the Cure, radio head.. maybe you consider punk? i dont know.. But I dont know if theres every been another invasion.

It's like a wave, it keep slapping on the shores.


Phase One : Beatles - Dave Clark Five - Hermans Hermits - The Hollies

Phase Two : Stones - Kinks - The Who - Cream

Phase Three Glam Era - Bolen - Bowie - Essexs

Phase Four Angry 3 minute Era - Sex Pistols - Elvis Costello - the Clash

Phase Five New Wave - The Fixx - The Cure- English Beat - The Specials

Phase Six The Manchester Sound - The Charletons UK - The Stone Roses - The Smiths - Oasis

ochre
10-02-2008, 05:28 PM
I think Tool merits discussion, though I much prefer A Perfect Circle. Korn? Meh. I'd rather talk Staind.

If we expand the discussion beyond rock, how about Outkast? Speakerboxx/The Love Below was great. The Love Below is one of my favorite albums of all time and I don't even like hip hop.
I agree on A Perfect Circle, just don't know if that project has quite the same reach as tool at this point.

My thoughts on korn, while perhaps they don't quite have the requisite chops, were that they've been pretty influential (and I believe contemporary influence is an essential element). They started the Family Values Tour and have a sort of cross-genre reach that makes them somewhat difficult to pin down. I think M2 is right, though, that too much of their success is 'too' '90s for them to be highly considered as a "Band of the aughts". As bad as limp biskit is, korn pretty much brought them the attention they needed to break out. I think it could, further, be said that lb then provided a similar service to the aforementioned staind. So, that's more where I was coming from on korn. More about their aggregate influence on music than anything else really.

vaticanplum
10-02-2008, 05:47 PM
It's like a wave, it keep slapping on the shores.


Phase One : Beatles - Dave Clark Five - Hermans Hermits - The Hollies

Phase Two : Stones - Kinks - The Who - Cream

Phase Three Glam Era - Bolen - Bowie - Essexs

Phase Four Angry 3 minute Era - Sex Pistols - Elvis Costello - the Clash

Phase Five New Wave - The Fixx - The Cure- English Beat - The Specials

Phase Six The Manchester Sound - The Charletons UK - The Stone Roses - The Smiths - Oasis

Man, that is some good music in that post.

What about phase 5.5, the shoegazers? Or phase 6.5, the sensitive British "bedwetting" music? (of which Coldplay was probably the height)

M2
10-02-2008, 07:32 PM
It's like a wave, it keep slapping on the shores.


Phase One : Beatles - Dave Clark Five - Hermans Hermits - The Hollies

Phase Two : Stones - Kinks - The Who - Cream

Phase Three Glam Era - Bolen - Bowie - Essexs

Phase Four Angry 3 minute Era - Sex Pistols - Elvis Costello - the Clash

Phase Five New Wave - The Fixx - The Cure- English Beat - The Specials

Phase Six The Manchester Sound - The Charletons UK - The Stone Roses - The Smiths - Oasis

I can think of five other British waves, two from the '70s, one from the '90s and two post-Manchester.

Stadium Rock - Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, post-Tommy Who

Heavy Metal - Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden

Electronica - Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk, Fatboy Slim, Paul Oakenfold, Crystal Method

Alterna-Monster Rock - Oasis (they're decidedly post Smiths/New Order), Radiohead, Blur, Elastica (to a lesser extent)

Next Wave (currently in process) - Franz Ferdinand, Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian, Razorlight, Keane

And Coldplay and James Blunt probably constitute a wave of their own, but I don't want to ride it.

Also, let's not leave Roxy Music and Slade on the sidelines when listing glam bands.

westofyou
10-02-2008, 07:46 PM
I can think of five other British waves, two from the '70s, one from the '90s and two post-Manchester.

Stadium Rock - Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, post-Tommy Who

Heavy Metal - Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden

Electronica - Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk, Fatboy Slim, Paul Oakenfold, Crystal Method

Alterna-Monster Rock - Oasis (they're decidedly post Smiths/New Order), Radiohead, Blur, Elastica (to a lesser extent)

Next Wave (currently in process) - Franz Ferdinand, Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian, Razorlight, Keane

And Coldplay and James Blunt probably constitute a wave of their own, but I don't want to ride it.

Also, let's not leave Roxy Music and Slade on the sidelines when listing glam bands.
You can also throw in a wave that would be Donovan/Moody Blues and early Pink Floyd

M2
10-02-2008, 08:07 PM
You can also throw in a wave that would be Donovan/Moody Blues and early Pink Floyd

Aye.

One other thing that occurs to me is that the rules of Brit invasions have changed. It used to be that bands could go gold over there, but they had to make it big in the U.S. to break into multi-platinum status.

Now rock bands are ascendant in England. A band can go multi-platinum over there and play big venues over there (and on the continent). Making it in the U.S. is gravy. It's enough for them to get scenester recognition over here.

GAC
10-02-2008, 08:43 PM
Music these days is like going to the grocery store for Cheerios.

It used to be just plain Cheerios.

Now, you go look at the cereal aisle and there is honey nut, berry burst, yogurt burst, multigrain, fruity, frosty, little o, big o, breakfast bars with cheerios, cheerio classic, cheerios out the wazoo, blah blah blah, ad infinitum....

With so many options, your brain tharns over from all the choices.

I go for the one with the best prize inside. :p:

cincyinco
10-03-2008, 02:32 AM
I was with you there until the techno part. But then my techno experience is based upon living in Germany in the 80s. :)

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-04-01/cover_story-2.jpg

LOL.. to each their own.. electronica has certainly progressed and its a bit different than it was in the 80's.. Tons of sub genre's have been born. Drum N Bass, Trance, Jungle, Breaks, Florida Breaks, Hard House, Chicago House, Progressive Trance, Progressive House, Progressive Breaks, etc. I could go at length about it.

You don't have to like it, my main point was that I think its becoming a larger influence than most recognize. Its part of our every day lives now.. whether you hear it in the background of a commerical or mixed in with some rock(again, ala incubis and lincoln park, the killers, your vegas, etc ), the turntable and/or electronic sound is becoming more and more prevelant. More and more electronic producers such as BT and Sasha are working with mainstream artists such as Modona..You might not really recognize it, but electronic music is influencing everything around you.

Deter would be dancing his legs off. :)

cincyinco
10-03-2008, 02:34 AM
Do Korn, or tool belong in this discussion?

Personally I think they do.

At one time I would have said yes to both.

I dont think Tool's sound has "grown" much so to speak. It hasn't progressed enough IMO. They sound the same. Is that a prerequesite to greatest band in the world? I dont know.. but for me, I like it when a band pushes themselves.

What about G'N'R? I wonder how the new album Chinese Democracy will be. If its as big as the hype, and GnR vaults back to the top of the mountain.. what does that say about their status?

cincyinco
10-03-2008, 02:44 AM
It's like a wave, it keep slapping on the shores.


Phase One : Beatles - Dave Clark Five - Hermans Hermits - The Hollies

Phase Two : Stones - Kinks - The Who - Cream

Phase Three Glam Era - Bolen - Bowie - Essexs

Phase Four Angry 3 minute Era - Sex Pistols - Elvis Costello - the Clash

Phase Five New Wave - The Fixx - The Cure- English Beat - The Specials

Phase Six The Manchester Sound - The Charletons UK - The Stone Roses - The Smiths - Oasis


I guess I can buy that.. But.. when looking at it in scope, I'm not so sure I'd break it up like that. While Phase 3 and 4 have their place in music history, I'm not sure I'd agree that it was "big" enough to consider a wave. It certainly wasn't a tsunami. Maybe its me being a bit younger, I have a different perspective on the past.. And I'm not sure I buy into Phase 6, at least as a fan.. heh.


I can think of five other British waves, two from the '70s, one from the '90s and two post-Manchester.

Stadium Rock - Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, post-Tommy Who

Heavy Metal - Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden

Electronica - Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk, Fatboy Slim, Paul Oakenfold, Crystal Method

Alterna-Monster Rock - Oasis (they're decidedly post Smiths/New Order), Radiohead, Blur, Elastica (to a lesser extent)

Next Wave (currently in process) - Franz Ferdinand, Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian, Razorlight, Keane

And Coldplay and James Blunt probably constitute a wave of their own, but I don't want to ride it.

Also, let's not leave Roxy Music and Slade on the sidelines when listing glam bands.

I like it.. but I'd have to point out that the Crystal Method is decidedly US of A and that Daft Punk is French. Prodigy might be a better fit there. :)

I am currently on the New Wave as you describe it. Franz kinda sucks IMO.. but gimme some Arctic Monkeys, Keane, Bloc Party, and on occasion some sappy Snow Patrol and i'm good. Coldplay has its moments, but as you stated, not a train i like to ride too much. Rush of Blood was, for me, the pinicale of their height.

Man, I guess I need to revisit my 80's UK stuff. U2, New Order, Morissey anyone? ha. and although not from the 80's, what about Elton John? He certainly has a storied career.. and what about Bauhuas, do they count? Peter Murphy? Dont know if they're UK or not.

The Operator
10-03-2008, 12:25 PM
Good choice. Not quite the mass appeal of some of the bands mentioned, but an excellent example of a modern hard rock band. Smart lyrics, stunning musicianship, and fantastic songs. I'm glad someone agrees. I agree about the lack of mass appeal. I thought after Songs For The Deaf and "No One Knows" that they had hit it big, but they sort of went back underground afterwards. But it doesn't break my heart any that they aren't mega-famous (I'm a huge fan), because that way I can see them in smaller venues whenever they come to the midwest, instead of cavernous arenas with no acoustic qualities.

And I'll throw out another cadidate: Incubus.

Great vocal range, solid musicianship (especially the drumming), and they've had many big hits over the last decade. I'm surprised I haven't seen them mentioned more in this thread.

*BaseClogger*
10-03-2008, 12:39 PM
And I'll throw out another cadidate: Incubus.

Great vocal range, solid musicianship (especially the drumming), and they've had many big hits over the last decade. I'm surprised I haven't seen them mentioned more in this thread.

I almost threw them out there because of how much they have progressed through their career. Light Grenades was an album that had a very broad appeal, but their earlier work is lesser known. I think they are another case of needing one more great album like Light Grenades to be there...

BillDoran
10-03-2008, 01:36 PM
I just had a couple of quick, and likely antagonistic, thoughts to add.

First, I think Pavement belongs somewhere in the discussion. Little mainstream success, but a huge influence over current indie rock. And five great to essential albums.

And to all those who are spouting the "there is no great music anymore" line, you couldn't possibly come off more curmudgeonly. As it's been noted, music is certainly qualitative, and the music I enjoy today (My Morning Jacket, White Stripes/Raconteurs, Radiohead, Rage Against the Machine) qualifies as timeless and classic to me. I imagine in a couple decades I'll be in the same shoes pissing on others enjoyment, but, currently, I find that mentality quite frustrating.

westofyou
10-03-2008, 01:47 PM
I just had a couple of quick, and likely antagonistic, thoughts to add.

First, I think Pavement belongs somewhere in the discussion. Little mainstream success, but a huge influence over current indie rock. And five great to essential albums.

And to all those who are spouting the "there is no great music anymore" line, you couldn't possibly come off more curmudgeonly. As it's been noted, music is certainly qualitative, and the music I enjoy today (My Morning Jacket, White Stripes/Raconteurs, Radiohead, Rage Against the Machine) qualifies as timeless and classic to me. I imagine in a couple decades I'll be in the same shoes pissing on others enjoyment, but, currently, I find that mentality quite frustrating.

Pavement certainly belongs in there, they were to me the biggest band of the early 90's I would go to great lengths to see them.

Without Pavement you might never get True Zero Hook by Small 23 or Ickky Metal by the Archers of Loaf

But they are also a licorice band, you either love em or hate em... but I want someone to play Fillmore Jive at my wake.

vaticanplum
10-03-2008, 01:49 PM
Pavement certainly belongs in there, they were to me the biggest band of the early 90's I would go to great lengths to see them.

Without Pavement you might never get True Zero Hook by Small 23 or Ickky Metal by the Archers of Loaf

But they are also a licorice band, you either love em or hate em... but I want someone to play Fillmore Jive at my wake.

Pavement no question belongs in the discussion of great bands of ever (there are a lot we haven't mentioned there), but not of this decade.

And on a side note, My Morning Jacket is a fantastic band.

westofyou
10-03-2008, 01:57 PM
And on a side note, My Morning Jacket is a fantastic band.

Pedro and I went to see them about 5 years ago and we split at about 1:20 and they were still going, I also saw them open for GBV prior to that... they just played a huge show here over the weekend, they certainly have garnered a fan base.


Are they as big in Europe as The Kings of Leon?

BillDoran
10-03-2008, 02:20 PM
Pedro and I went to see them about 5 years ago and we split at about 1:20 and they were still going, I also saw them open for GBV prior to that... they just played a huge show here over the weekend, they certainly have garnered a fan base.


Are they as big in Europe as The Kings of Leon?

I was at the show this weekend at Edgefield, and they put on another of their monster performances. I went with a friend who isn't a huge music fan. And he had the "Are we done yet?" face at the hour and a half mark. I capitulated and missed a good hour of show. Of what I did see, Jim James and Co. are showing no signs of slowing down.

An interesting digression, going to MMJ shows, especially in hipster capital Portland, the divide between music fans and t-shirt fans (the ones who go to the show to buy the t-shirt and the scene). After an hour or so, the t-shirt crowd is looking around wondering when they can leave, while the hardcore fans are gradually moving forward and passing around refreshments.

Segue - My Morning Jacket is slowly approaching the biggest bands of an era territory. Their new album was a rather wild turn from jam/southern rock sound, but an empatically enjoyable one at that. The future looks adventurous and bright.

vaticanplum
10-03-2008, 02:28 PM
I also saw them open for GBV prior to that...

That must have been the longest show. ever. And probably very fun.

westofyou
10-03-2008, 02:37 PM
That must have been the longest show. ever. And probably very fun.

It was the Universal Truth and Cycles Tour, they did the whole album and then an open set.

M2
10-03-2008, 03:12 PM
You could argue that it's been the decade of Rage Against the Machine, but they had their aughts in the '90s.

Falls City Beer
10-03-2008, 03:59 PM
I think there are maybe two bands who meet that in history. All the rest had some clunkers or their "classics" overlap too much against taste for it really to be a subjective argument.

My impression is that when we're talking about a band in a specific time frame, the time and environment must be considered, and that, for better or worse, involves more than just music (even though the music is by far the most important thing).

Well my criterion includes the Silver Jews, and I know they don't make your list, so between the two of us we're up to three bands that meet this benchmark. :p:

klw
10-03-2008, 04:30 PM
I can think of five other British waves, two from the '70s, one from the '90s and two post-Manchester.

Stadium Rock - Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, post-Tommy Who

Heavy Metal - Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden

Electronica - Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk, Fatboy Slim, Paul Oakenfold, Crystal Method

Alterna-Monster Rock - Oasis (they're decidedly post Smiths/New Order), Radiohead, Blur, Elastica (to a lesser extent)

Next Wave (currently in process) - Franz Ferdinand, Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian, Razorlight, Keane

And Coldplay and James Blunt probably constitute a wave of their own, but I don't want to ride it.

Also, let's not leave Roxy Music and Slade on the sidelines when listing glam bands.

klw
10-03-2008, 04:34 PM
It's like a wave, it keep slapping on the shores.


Phase One : Beatles - Dave Clark Five - Hermans Hermits - The Hollies

Phase Two : Stones - Kinks - The Who - Cream

Phase Three Glam Era - Bolen - Bowie - Essexs

Phase Four Angry 3 minute Era - Sex Pistols - Elvis Costello - the Clash

Phase Five New Wave - The Fixx - The Cure- English Beat - The Specials

Phase Six The Manchester Sound - The Charletons UK - The Stone Roses - The Smiths - Oasis


Thank you for spelling out this. My original remark wasn't meant to imply that these later waves were as significant as the first. Instead I should have said that inevitably each wave is called the next British Invasion as part of the hype. Phase 5 I would also throw the Alarm and Big Country into that time. Smiths were part of that time (82 and on) too as opposed to the period of Oasis, the Blur. etc.

cincinnati chili
10-04-2008, 01:47 AM
If we're talking about mainstream bands I think Coldplay is probably it. They're not exactly my cup of tea but they're huge, and I sense that they'll be associated with this decade in the future. They didn't form until 1998 and just about everything they've done has been in this decade.

For the 90's, I was leaning toward Nirvana, but technically their lead singer was dead half of the decade. Maybe Phish.

When I think 80's, I think Duran Duran.

Zeppelin in the 70's.

Beatles in the 60's.

redsfanmia
10-04-2008, 03:46 PM
For the 90's, I was leaning toward Nirvana, but technically their lead singer was dead half of the decade. Maybe Phish.

How about Pearl Jam for the band of the 90's? I would still go with Nirvana because they broke a new genre and pretty much singlehandedly banished that awful hair metal to the bargain bins.

redsfanmia
10-04-2008, 03:50 PM
I personally feel that the biggest band in the world shifts every few years cause its a rare band that sustains success for an entire decade. The Beatles lasted what 8 years? The list of bands who have been relevant for longer than a handful of years is a pretty short one.

klw
10-04-2008, 08:41 PM
1963-1970 Beatles
1970- 75 ?
1975-1987 Springsteen
1987-1998 U2
1998- Eminem through 8 Mile, ask someone younger than I

My thought on the transition dates is the date of great anticipation of the release of albums. 75 is Born to Run 87 for the Joshua Tree. The anticipation of the Joshua Tree was tremendous and certainly exceeded that for Tunnel of Love later that year. The passing could also be seen as happening with Springsteen firing the E Street band in 89. U2's run certainly went through Achtung Baby but certainly tailed off for a bit. My guess is that the mantle then went to Eminem though album sales would say it went to one of the boy bands.

guttle11
10-04-2008, 09:11 PM
1998- Eminem through 8 Mile, ask someone younger than I


That's an excellent point. Eminem hits all the categories. He's influential, critically acclaimed, many times platinum in sales, and had three consecutive albums comprised of hits.

Granted, The Slim Shady LP came out in the 90s, but he's done enough in the "aughts" to warrant being in the discussion.

Caveat Emperor
10-05-2008, 03:16 AM
That's an excellent point. Eminem hits all the categories. He's influential, critically acclaimed, many times platinum in sales, and had three consecutive albums comprised of hits.

Granted, The Slim Shady LP came out in the 90s, but he's done enough in the "aughts" to warrant being in the discussion.

If you're going to include rappers, the aughts really belonged to Ludacris.

He's had a string of hit records that began in '00 with "Back for the First Time" (singles: Southern Hospitality and Whats Your Fantasy?), and includes "Word of Mouf" in '01 (singles: Roll Out, Move B---, Area Codes), "Chicken 'n Beer" in '03 (singles: Stand Up, Splash Waterfalls), "Red Light District" in '04 (singles: Get Back, Number One Spot), "Release Therapy" in '06 (singles: "Money Maker" and "Runaway Love") and just released "Theater of the Mind" this past year.


And to all those who are spouting the "there is no great music anymore" line, you couldn't possibly come off more curmudgeonly. As it's been noted, music is certainly qualitative, and the music I enjoy today (My Morning Jacket, White Stripes/Raconteurs, Radiohead, Rage Against the Machine) qualifies as timeless and classic to me. I imagine in a couple decades I'll be in the same shoes pissing on others enjoyment, but, currently, I find that mentality quite frustrating.

It depends on how you define "great."

If you define "great" as "better than average or better than good" then yeah, there are probably quite a few great bands out there.

If you define "great" as "timeless music with appeal to music fans across the spectrum" ala the Beatles, the Who, U2, etc. then I think people are right when they say there is no great music anymore. You can blame the balkanization of the music industry for that, most likely.

Ask yourself this: how many bands from the '00-current crop could announce a nationwide stadium/arena tour today, by themselves, and sell out the majority of the venues they played?

*BaseClogger*
10-05-2008, 12:34 PM
If you define "great" as "timeless music with appeal to music fans across the spectrum" ala the Beatles, the Who, U2, etc. then I think people are right when they say there is no great music anymore.

Perhaps you are out of touch with "timeless" if the current generation doesn't agree with you on U2 and the Who?

Falls City Beer
10-05-2008, 01:15 PM
If I had to name one band that has put out consistently great work since 1999, the only band I can think of is My Morning Jacket (though the new one is taking some getting used to).

BillDoran
10-05-2008, 01:51 PM
It depends on how you define "great."

If you define "great" as "better than average or better than good" then yeah, there are probably quite a few great bands out there.

If you define "great" as "timeless music with appeal to music fans across the spectrum" ala the Beatles, the Who, U2, etc. then I think people are right when they say there is no great music anymore. You can blame the balkanization of the music industry for that, most likely.

Ask yourself this: how many bands from the '00-current crop could announce a nationwide stadium/arena tour today, by themselves, and sell out the majority of the venues they played?

I'm of the opinion that the music quality is there, but the contemporary music industry is not arranged in a way for bands to become renown as in the past.

Though, I do think Jack White qualifies for your muddled standards


If I had to name one band that has put out consistently great work since 1999, the only band I can think of is My Morning Jacket (though the new one is taking some getting used to).

Highly suspicious.

M2
10-05-2008, 05:22 PM
If we're talking about mainstream bands I think Coldplay is probably it. They're not exactly my cup of tea but they're huge, and I sense that they'll be associated with this decade in the future. They didn't form until 1998 and just about everything they've done has been in this decade.

For the 90's, I was leaning toward Nirvana, but technically their lead singer was dead half of the decade. Maybe Phish.

When I think 80's, I think Duran Duran.

Zeppelin in the 70's.

Beatles in the 60's.

What? No Offspring?

Raisor
10-05-2008, 05:50 PM
The Killers need to be at least in the discussion.

MilotheMayor
10-05-2008, 06:13 PM
The Killers need to be at least in the discussion.It's somewhat unfortunate and at least ironic that this is my first post here on Redszone after a few years of lurking, but The Killers are definately NOT in the discussion. Blatantly ripping off Duran Duran and The Boss himself through their first two LPs is certainly not merit for serious consideration. (Besides Flowers is an awfully strained singer without the studio autotuner.) To each his own though.

In the overall scheme of this ongoing argument, once U2 lost the plot during the mid-90s, Radiohead is the most influential alternative band at the moment despite a lack of truly dominating commericial success. Concerning more recent bands, I think Arcade Fire has the most potential to cross into the mainstream to rouse the spirit of an audience larger than 100,000 niche buyers and still keep the good graces of the critics. I also have my eye on TV on the Radio who have just made another stellar art-rock album with Dear Science, by far the best album of the year.

(BTW, music and baseball are the two true loves of my life, so I find it fairly suiting that my first post is in this thread.):D

Raisor
10-05-2008, 06:18 PM
It's somewhat unfortunate and at least ironic that this is my first post here on Redszone after a few years of lurking, but The Killers are definately NOT in the discussion. Blatantly ripping off Duran Duran and The Boss himself

Yeah, but I LIKE Duran Duran and Bruce, and a combo like that is so weird that it works.

vaticanplum
10-05-2008, 08:13 PM
It's somewhat unfortunate and at least ironic that this is my first post here on Redszone after a few years of lurking, but The Killers are definately NOT in the discussion. Blatantly ripping off Duran Duran and The Boss himself through their first two LPs is certainly not merit for serious consideration. (Besides Flowers is an awfully strained singer without the studio autotuner.) To each his own though.

In the overall scheme of this ongoing argument, once U2 lost the plot during the mid-90s, Radiohead is the most influential alternative band at the moment despite a lack of truly dominating commericial success. Concerning more recent bands, I think Arcade Fire has the most potential to cross into the mainstream to rouse the spirit of an audience larger than 100,000 niche buyers and still keep the good graces of the critics. I also have my eye on TV on the Radio who have just made another stellar art-rock album with Dear Science, by far the best album of the year.

(BTW, music and baseball are the two true loves of my life, so I find it fairly suiting that my first post is in this thread.):D

I have never understood the appeal of The Killers. Their stuff sounds totally derivative and uninteresting to me -- and this is coming from somebody who worships The Strokes and has a lot of time for Franz Ferdinand too. I know they're quite popular and have a certain amount of respect too, so I've always just assumed I was missing something.

westofyou
10-05-2008, 08:47 PM
Yeah, but I LIKE Duran Duran and Bruce, and a combo like that is so weird that it works.

If you like Bruce then you'd like some of the Hold Steady's stuff.. that is unless you aren't interested in consistent drug and Catholicism references.

M2
10-05-2008, 09:37 PM
I have never understood the appeal of The Killers. Their stuff sounds totally derivative and uninteresting to me -- and this is coming from somebody who worships The Strokes and has a lot of time for Franz Ferdinand too. I know they're quite popular and have a certain amount of respect too, so I've always just assumed I was missing something.

I'd call them more melange than derivative. I think what gets them over is that they go for a big sound. They also came up with a transcendent moment with the "I've got soul, but I'm not a soldier" section of "All These Things That I've Done."

Now, I'll be the first to tell you that the Soul Savers worked a better gospel hook into "Revival," but The Killers showed a lot of promise on their first record. I'd actually compare it to "Pablo Honey." The key for a band like The Killers is how well you stop hearing all their influences and start hearing something that goes beyond those influences.

ochre
10-06-2008, 12:59 PM
Ask yourself this: how many bands from the '00-current crop could announce a nationwide stadium/arena tour today, by themselves, and sell out the majority of the venues they played?
Ahh. The Miley Cyrus test... :)

nate
10-06-2008, 01:36 PM
I'd call them more melange than derivative.

That's awesome. Take out the "than" and you have a perfect description for music of the last 30 years, "melange derivative."

Anyhow, after some careful thought, I've come to a conclusion about the original question that started the thread. The "band of the aughts" is the same as the "band of the 70's, 80's and 90's." This is likely to be the last decade they are crowned "king" and much like a Ken Griffey Jr. = All Star, it may be more honorary than deserved.

The band of the aughts is...

http://www.gluethemoose.com/neen/redszone/stones.jpg

kaldaniels
10-06-2008, 02:23 PM
Where I'm coming from...

My favorite bands include AC/DC,Pink Floyd,U2,Pearl Jam, and Springsteen. Sorry but I don't have too many "obscure" bands on my list...just not that cool.

Now hear me out...

When it is all said and done for this decade...keep an eye on John Mayer. (I don't know...he's not a band...does he qualify?) But anyway...to be considered to be the band of this decade, I'm gonna require 2 things.

1) Great popularity by the masses
2) Great music.

Mayer will take some knocks from those not pleased with his tabloid lifestyle I bet...but the man is talented. One of my favorite concert DVDs of the past few years is his latest. It is split into 3 parts...acoustic, blues band, and his regular band. The guy is incredibly talented, and when this decade is over, his catalog from the past 10 years probably will rival just about anyone's over that time period. If you can get past his "sugary" stuff the guy can play some great music.

ochre
10-06-2008, 03:28 PM
Ahh. The Miley Cyrus test... :)
I said this largely in jest, but isn't this, roughly, the demographic that put the Beatles, sort of, over the top? Are the Beatles the Beatles without the hordes of teenish girls fainting in their presence?

Raisor
10-06-2008, 03:59 PM
I said this largely in jest, but isn't this, roughly, the demographic that put the Beatles, sort of, over the top? Are the Beatles the Beatles without the hordes of teenish girls fainting in their presence?

And Raisor isn't Raisor without the same thing...

nate
10-06-2008, 04:09 PM
I said this largely in jest, but isn't this, roughly, the demographic that put the Beatles, sort of, over the top? Are the Beatles the Beatles without the hordes of teenish girls fainting in their presence?

Well, there were all those great songs the Beatles wrote...but fainting is a common tone!

ochre
10-06-2008, 05:17 PM
Well, there were all those great songs the Beatles wrote...but fainting is a common tone!
Yeah. That's what I meant. Because Bob Dylan never wrote a great song.

It has already been pointed out that it isn't just about the quality of the music. How many other artists/groups have had a similar effect outside of Elvis and Rex Manning? While maintaining their credibility across other demographics?

It is sort of that cross-demographic appeal that I think really matters in identifying the ostensible "Band of ... "

Highlifeman21
10-06-2008, 07:46 PM
FWIW, I'd rather listen to Miley Cyrus than the Beatles.

And I'd rather listen to the Beatles than The Killers.

And I'd rather listen to The Killers than Radiohead.



But I really can't believe that Metallica's latest album is topping the charts....


As for the original topic, I can remember who mentioned him, but Jay Z is the correct answer.

nate
10-06-2008, 08:37 PM
Yeah. That's what I meant. Because Bob Dylan never wrote a great song.

It has already been pointed out that it isn't just about the quality of the music. How many other artists/groups have had a similar effect outside of Elvis and Rex Manning? While maintaining their credibility across other demographics?

Yeah, it sure helps to be good looking or have a sociological element (like The Dead or Jimmy Buffett) but in the end, the thing that ties people to bands is the music.


It is sort of that cross-demographic appeal that I think really matters in identifying the ostensible "Band of ... "

I think the cross-demographic appeal comes from writing songs that touch a wide variety of people, not from a supple hindquarters.

Although... ;)

nate
10-06-2008, 08:41 PM
As for the original topic, I can remember who mentioned him, but Jay Z is the correct answer.

Jay-Z is probably up there as an artist and a producer but I thought we were talking about "bands" and "rock." He is neither.

If we're talking about "musical acts of the aughts," he's up there, fo' sho.

vaticanplum
10-07-2008, 03:45 PM
itunes just reminded me of somebody who is not a band and can in no way compete for this title, but who musically has gotten better and better throughout this decade: Andrew Bird. His stuff may not be for everybody, but it is really quality stuff. I love it.

MilotheMayor
10-07-2008, 04:30 PM
itunes just reminded me of somebody who is not a band and can in no way compete for this title, but who musically has gotten better and better throughout this decade: Andrew Bird. His stuff may not be for everybody, but it is really quality stuff. I love it.Sufjan Steven's body of work is just as good as Bird's I think. Two great songwriters from this decade.

Johnny Footstool
10-07-2008, 04:40 PM
After finally listening to "Neon Bible" (and ignoring the first three tracks), I'd have to agree with those who say the Arcade Fire is the Next Big Thing. I can see a Radiohead-esque career path for this incredible band.

Joseph
10-07-2008, 05:30 PM
I'm gonna stick my neck on the chopping block here. I read the first post and I see the criteria set forth as being a band that influenced other bands and had several great/really good albums in a row that you just can't stop playing.....

Then I see people tossing out names of bands no one has ever heard of, or bands that are barely on a national radar....this isn't one upping the next guy by naming the most obscure/under appreciated bands.

I get that 'pop' music sucks, just ask Hank III, but c'mon....My Morning Jacket is the band of the aughts? I don't think so. They are a fine band, good records and all that, but I don't exactly hear them influencing a lot of people, or selling a lot of records.

Maybe I'm in my own little world, oblivious to all this great music that everyone else is into now. Its possible, and hell probably likely, but this thread turned into a one upsmanship of 'my bands cooler than yours' real quick. Someone please name some bands that could actually contend for a title like the first post suggests.

M2
10-07-2008, 05:38 PM
I'm gonna stick my neck on the chopping block here. I read the first post and I see the criteria set forth as being a band that influenced other bands and had several great/really good albums in a row that you just can't stop playing.....

Then I see people tossing out names of bands no one has ever heard of, or bands that are barely on a national radar....this isn't one upping the next guy by naming the most obscure/under appreciated bands.

I get that 'pop' music sucks, just ask Hank III, but c'mon....My Morning Jacket is the band of the aughts? I don't think so. They are a fine band, good records and all that, but I don't exactly hear them influencing a lot of people, or selling a lot of records.

Maybe I'm in my own little world, oblivious to all this great music that everyone else is into now. Its possible, and hell probably likely, but this thread turned into a one upsmanship of 'my bands cooler than yours' real quick. Someone please name some bands that could actually contend for a title like the first post suggests.

To be fair, most of the bands I named in the first post are on the obscure side. It's entirely possible that the World's Greatest Band at this point in history isn't anywhere close to a household name.

Stephenk29
10-07-2008, 06:16 PM
To be fair, most of the bands I named in the first post are on the obscure side. It's entirely possible that the World's Greatest Band at this point in history isn't anywhere close to a household name.

Can't say I've ever heard of them, and I know quite a few of the obscure ones.

The Baumer
10-07-2008, 06:21 PM
I'm gonna stick my neck on the chopping block here. I read the first post and I see the criteria set forth as being a band that influenced other bands and had several great/really good albums in a row that you just can't stop playing.....

Then I see people tossing out names of bands no one has ever heard of, or bands that are barely on a national radar....this isn't one upping the next guy by naming the most obscure/under appreciated bands.

I get that 'pop' music sucks, just ask Hank III, but c'mon....My Morning Jacket is the band of the aughts? I don't think so. They are a fine band, good records and all that, but I don't exactly hear them influencing a lot of people, or selling a lot of records.

Maybe I'm in my own little world, oblivious to all this great music that everyone else is into now. Its possible, and hell probably likely, but this thread turned into a one upsmanship of 'my bands cooler than yours' real quick. Someone please name some bands that could actually contend for a title like the first post suggests.

While that one upmanship is very common around the internet, I think you are stretching here. Most people who named "obscure" bands prefaced their comments by acknowledging that their choices don't qualify and are just their own personal choices.

Also I wouldn't consider My Morning Jacket to be a cool obscure band to name drop. They are on a major label and pretty huge.

nate
10-07-2008, 06:22 PM
I'm gonna stick my neck on the chopping block here. I read the first post and I see the criteria set forth as being a band that influenced other bands and had several great/really good albums in a row that you just can't stop playing.....

Then I see people tossing out names of bands no one has ever heard of, or bands that are barely on a national radar....this isn't one upping the next guy by naming the most obscure/under appreciated bands.

I get that 'pop' music sucks, just ask Hank III, but c'mon....My Morning Jacket is the band of the aughts? I don't think so. They are a fine band, good records and all that, but I don't exactly hear them influencing a lot of people, or selling a lot of records.

Maybe I'm in my own little world, oblivious to all this great music that everyone else is into now. Its possible, and hell probably likely, but this thread turned into a one upsmanship of 'my bands cooler than yours' real quick. Someone please name some bands that could actually contend for a title like the first post suggests.

Amongst the most astute points of the entire thread.

Not that there's anything wrong with people talking about their favorite bands. I just think a lot of people are bringing in issues of taste and their own personal likes / dislikes. It really boils down to which band inspires people to part with their hard-earned coin and not much else besides that.

That's why I said the Stones. They've been doing tours for years, people love 'em. Sure, they're riding their old material but that's what people connect with. It could also be Springsteen or U2. Maybe Green Day or Coldplay.

nate
10-07-2008, 06:24 PM
To be fair, most of the bands I named in the first post are on the obscure side. It's entirely possible that the World's Greatest Band at this point in history isn't anywhere close to a household name.

Then it's not "the World's Greatest Band at this point in history."

It could be "the World's Greatest Band at some point in the future" though!

:cool:

The Baumer
10-07-2008, 06:31 PM
Here I was taking into account personal taste and preferences when I didn't realize it was this easy to find the bands of the aughts. Just a click away!

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Albums&f=The+Billboard+200

improbus
10-07-2008, 08:16 PM
Just a few things about music that I have observed lately
-People have unprecedented access to music. When I was in HS (some of your most formative years for listening to music), I only knew about the bands on the radio (Nirvana, PJ, STP, Metallica, etc...) or I heard about a band from that one kid that lived in the art wing of the building who has a brother in college. So, it was difficult to hear new, core stuff. Now, you can find a band on pitchfork, then play six degrees of Kevin Bacon with them. Everything has changed, and every persons individual tastes are satiated. This is very similar to the fall of Monday Night Football.
-Like clockwork, if a band has a hit/critical success then their next album will be destroyed by the critics for either sounding too much like their original or not enough like the original. It is fun to predict which will occur before a sophomore album comes out.
-Bands on major labels aren't usually given too much time to develop. That is what makes Radiohead special, whether you like them and their progression or not. They were given the chance to continue and go in their own direction and they took it. Now, bands that want to do that are more and more going the indie-label route. This is great for art, but not so great for generating the mega-band.
-In a way, the Beatles break-up set a bad precedent. Now, it is almost expected that bands will break up. It is really a shame.

If I had to pick a band of the 'Aught's, it would be Coldplay.
-No other band has more songs that people know and like. Everybody can sing at least 3-4 Coldplay songs. Can you say that about any other band?
-Their songs can be depressing emo songs or can be played at a stadium before a big game (ala Queen).

M2
10-07-2008, 08:51 PM
Then it's not "the World's Greatest Band at this point in history."

It could be "the World's Greatest Band at some point in the future" though!

:cool:

Except I don't buy into the notion that album sales have much to do with WGB in the modern music market. It's likely a band with a much smaller commercial footprint (particularly in the U.S.) than back in the day.


Can't say I've ever heard of them, and I know quite a few of the obscure ones.

I find it hard to believe that you'd know "quite a few obscure ones" and not know The White Stripes. Their last three albums have gone 2, 3 and 6 on the Billboard charts. They get heavy radio play on rock stations and have all decade. Soccer fans worldwide sing the intro hook to "Seven Nation Army".

The Hives are fairly in your face too. They've had songs featured as themes for WWE events (cutting a track with Timbaland in one instance) and Cartoon Network, in Nike commercials, on the Spider-Man soundtrack and in the TV spots for Get Smart.

Both bands are regulars on the SNL, Letterman, Leno, Conan, Kimmel, Ferguson circuit and can be found on various versions of Guitar Hero. I'll guarantee you've heard those two bands. Arcade Fire, maybe not.

M2
10-07-2008, 08:55 PM
No other band has more songs that people know and like. Everybody can sing at least 3-4 Coldplay songs. Can you say that about any other band?

I can't. I change the station whenever I hear them. They immediately trip my "I'm bored" reflex.

Stephenk29
10-07-2008, 08:58 PM
Except I don't buy into the notion that album sales have much to do with WGB in the modern music market. It's likely a band with a much smaller commercial footprint (particularly in the U.S.) than back in the day.



I find it hard to believe that you'd know "quite a few obscure ones" and not know The White Stripes. Their last three albums have gone 2, 3 and 6 on the Billboard charts. They get heavy radio play on rock stations and have all decade. Soccer fans worldwide sing the intro hook to "Seven Nation Army".

The Hives are fairly in your face too. They've had songs featured as themes for WWE events (cutting a track with Timbaland in one instance) and Cartoon Network, in Nike commercials, on the Spider-Man soundtrack and in the TV spots for Get Smart.

Both bands are regulars on the SNL, Letterman, Leno, Conan, Kimmel, Ferguson circuit and can be found on various versions of Guitar Hero. I'll guarantee you've heard those two bands. Arcade Fire, maybe not.

I never said anything in regards to The White Stripes and The Hives?

Pretty sure I only said My Morning Jacket.


.......whoops, I qouted the wrong person, my bad.

*BaseClogger*
10-07-2008, 09:27 PM
I'm gonna stick my neck on the chopping block here. I read the first post and I see the criteria set forth as being a band that influenced other bands and had several great/really good albums in a row that you just can't stop playing.....

Then I see people tossing out names of bands no one has ever heard of, or bands that are barely on a national radar....this isn't one upping the next guy by naming the most obscure/under appreciated bands.

I get that 'pop' music sucks, just ask Hank III, but c'mon....My Morning Jacket is the band of the aughts? I don't think so. They are a fine band, good records and all that, but I don't exactly hear them influencing a lot of people, or selling a lot of records.

Maybe I'm in my own little world, oblivious to all this great music that everyone else is into now. Its possible, and hell probably likely, but this thread turned into a one upsmanship of 'my bands cooler than yours' real quick. Someone please name some bands that could actually contend for a title like the first post suggests.

:clap: Bravo for saying what I think many of us were thinking but knew it had to be someone with a little more clout to say it...

The best band doesn't have to be the most popular, I mean Tool or Queens of the Stone Age don't get that much radio play, but I don't think it can be a band 90% of the rock community has never even heard of...

Falls City Beer
10-07-2008, 10:14 PM
Also I wouldn't consider My Morning Jacket to be a cool obscure band to name drop. They are on a major label and pretty huge.

Exactly.

*BaseClogger*
10-07-2008, 10:21 PM
What big album has My Morning Jacket released?

paintmered
10-07-2008, 10:26 PM
At no point did "best band of the aughts" become equal to "band of the aughts". They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. Instead, my criteria is this: in forty years, when the average person thinks back on the music of the aughts, which band does that person think of first?

My initial guess is that band will be Coldplay.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2008, 10:26 PM
What big album has My Morning Jacket released?

Z
It Still Moves
Evil Urges

I'd say they're on a par with mid-80s R.E.M. in terms of popularity. Not huge, 5 or 6 platinum sellers, but big, word-of-mouth following with ever-growing live show fame.

Stephenk29
10-07-2008, 10:35 PM
I'm not trying to beat the horse, or stir anything up. I'm sure My Morning Jacket has some decent stuff, but wouldn't 5 or 6 platinum records be a prerequisite for "band of the aughts?"

*BaseClogger*
10-07-2008, 10:38 PM
Z
It Still Moves
Evil Urges

I'd say they're on a par with mid-80s R.E.M. in terms of popularity. Not huge, 5 or 6 platinum sellers, but big, word-of-mouth following with ever-growing live show fame.

Of R.E.M.'s 14 studio albums, six were certified gold, one platinum, one double platinum, and three 4 X platinum albums. Only the more recent albums have sold less. To compare My Morning Jacket to a band which helped lay the foundation for alternative rock seems misguided IMO...

Falls City Beer
10-07-2008, 10:38 PM
I'm not trying to beat the horse, or stir anything up. I'm sure My Morning Jacket has some decent stuff, but wouldn't 5 or 6 platinum records be a prerequisite for "band of the aughts?"

Again, if you're trying to identify the biggest band, check out Baumer's link.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2008, 10:39 PM
Of R.E.M.'s 14 studio albums, six were certified gold, one platinum, one double platinum, and three 4 X platinum albums. Only the more recent albums have sold less. To compare My Morning Jacket to a band which helped lay the foundation for alternative rock seems misguided IMO...

I'm not comparing them in terms of anything but sales figures. R.E.M. is a much better band. And I was talking about R.E.M.'s pre-Green output when I was comparing sales figures.

*BaseClogger*
10-07-2008, 10:39 PM
I'm not trying to beat the horse, or stir anything up. I'm sure My Morning Jacket has some decent stuff, but wouldn't 5 or 6 platinum records be a prerequisite for "band of the aughts?"

Even that seems like too high of a standard, because not many bands do that anymore. But come on, at least have an album that is certified platinum...

nate
10-07-2008, 10:39 PM
Except I don't buy into the notion that album sales have much to do with WGB in the modern music market. It's likely a band with a much smaller commercial footprint (particularly in the U.S.) than back in the day.

Me either. WGB sells out stadiums and people get up at ungodly hours of the morning to buy tickets to their shows.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2008, 10:42 PM
But come on, at least have an album that is certified platinum...

Why? For the heck of it...? You're either evaluating or you're identifying the biggest name. The biggest name can be the best, but right now, it's not.

*BaseClogger*
10-07-2008, 10:42 PM
I'm not comparing them in terms of anything but sales figures. R.E.M. is a much better band. And I was talking about R.E.M.'s pre-Green output when I was comparing sales figures.

Document went platinum...

*BaseClogger*
10-07-2008, 10:43 PM
Why? For the heck of it...? You're either evaluating or you're identifying the biggest name. The biggest name can be the best, but right now, it's not.

Are we talking about the best, or the most important? Can someone define what "band of the aughts" means?

Falls City Beer
10-07-2008, 10:44 PM
Document went platinum...

But up to Document, they were pretty word-of-mouth.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2008, 10:45 PM
Are we talking about the best, or the most important? Can someone define what "band of the aughts" means?

How do you define "most important?" The answer is: you don't; until you can hear their influence in future bands.

Stephenk29
10-07-2008, 10:46 PM
I think record sales is a simple sign of popularity across the market. If your big into the genre, then yeah you probably know group so and so. But if someone like R.E.M. has a couple platinum albums, then they appear to appeal to fans of all genres. Group x, although popular to a genre, may not be popular on the grand sceme of things. So when you look back in 20 years your average person is going to know bands like R.E.M., Zepplin, Beatles, Stones, and so on.

Coldplay seems pretty reasonable, but I don't think there is that ONE band you can obviously point out

*BaseClogger*
10-07-2008, 10:47 PM
But up to Document, they were pretty word-of-mouth.


I guess we will just have to wait for My Morning Jacket's platinum albums...

*BaseClogger*
10-07-2008, 10:47 PM
How do you define "most important?" The answer is: you don't; until you can hear their influence in future bands.

Does it have to be most important to other bands? What about most important to rock music fans?

Falls City Beer
10-07-2008, 10:49 PM
Does it have to be most important to other bands? What about most important to rock music fans?

What the heck does "important" mean? Record sales.

Decide what you're deciding: biggest band or best band or biggest and best. Most important isn't a category.

Stephenk29
10-07-2008, 10:49 PM
Me either. WGB sells out stadiums and people get up at ungodly hours of the morning to buy tickets to their shows.


This is how things are with bands like Tool and Nine Inch Nails as well. It is impossible to get NIN tickets from what I hear. Do they seem like that big of an influence though?

MilotheMayor
10-07-2008, 10:58 PM
This is how things are with bands like Tool and Nine Inch Nails as well. It is impossible to get NIN tickets from what I hear. Do they seem like that big of an influence though?Ah, Nine Inch Nails is a band that has been overlooked in this discussion, worth a decent amount of consideration although their principle commercial success was back in the 90s.

bucksfan
10-07-2008, 11:03 PM
After all of this, I am still hard pressed to nominate a potential band for the aughts at this time.

I think others have hit on why this is so hard and it is certainly not for lack of "good music" (by whatever definition you wish). There is just so much music so readily available that people are going to be more spread out for lack of a better term.

As disconnected as I may have been, I still love music, listen to the radio, and for over a year have had XM , which is helping me "re-expand" for sure. I have loved the discussion here, and it is making me go back to checking out some stuff on the web for the first time in a while.

*BaseClogger*
10-07-2008, 11:15 PM
What the heck does "important" mean? Record sales.

Decide what you're deciding: biggest band or best band or biggest and best. Most important isn't a category.

I don't think band of the aughts means either biggest or best. I think most important is a category because just like band of the aughts, it can't be quantified.

It can't be biggest because the highest sellers aren't always the ones that have staying power or meaning; but at the same time it can't be best because best is controversial and what was thought of as best by some might not go down as best in the history books...

nate
10-08-2008, 09:37 AM
What the heck does "important" mean? Record sales.

Not _just_ music sales. Touring sales, DVD sales, merch sales, publishing, publishing, publishing and maybe a bit of publishing.

WGB inspires the masses to buy into them.

I bet sale of music isn't even a primary source of income.


Decide what you're deciding: biggest band

= popularity


or best band

= taste


or biggest and best.

Both and neither.


Most important isn't a category.

Sure it is, but it's one of them there subjective discussions.

nate
10-08-2008, 09:45 AM
Have a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Artists_by_reputed_sales).

It only lists album sales but it's a pretty interesting list. There are some acts (like Queen) that haven't really been considered in this thread (sorry if someone mentioned them and I missed it). You might have to filter out the non-rock acts mentally, but it's pretty interesting.

nate
10-08-2008, 09:50 AM
This is how things are with bands like Tool and Nine Inch Nails as well. It is impossible to get NIN tickets from what I hear. Do they seem like that big of an influence though?

I don't think so. I don't think NIN is really "rock."

Now, if they play 250 sold out shows at venues that average 30k people a year for 10 years, maybe.

westofyou
10-08-2008, 10:04 AM
Have a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Artists_by_reputed_sales).

It only lists album sales but it's a pretty interesting list. There are some acts (like Queen) that haven't really been considered in this thread (sorry if someone mentioned them and I missed it). You might have to filter out the non-rock acts mentally, but it's pretty interesting.

Queen?

No ever talks about them here.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37413
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70866
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41310
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53517
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30242

*BaseClogger*
10-08-2008, 10:17 AM
I don't think so. I don't think NIN is really "rock."

Now, if they play 250 sold out shows at venues that average 30k people a year for 10 years, maybe.

NIN isn't rock!? :eek:

Please, do explain...

nate
10-08-2008, 10:55 AM
NIN isn't rock!? :eek:

Please, do explain...

I always thought of it as "Industrial Pop" because he (NIN is really just Trent Reznor) made "Industrial" music popular. Maybe "Industrial Rock" but not "rock" like, for example, AC/DC.

nate
10-08-2008, 10:55 AM
Queen?

No ever talks about them here.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37413
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70866
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41310
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53517
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30242

Yes, thus:


It only lists album sales but it's a pretty interesting list. There are some acts (like Queen) that haven't really been considered in this thread (sorry if someone mentioned them and I missed it). You might have to filter out the non-rock acts mentally, but it's pretty interesting.

Had Freddie not died, Queen might've been the new Stones or Beatles. In a way, they were kind of the best combination of the two with their "rock" sound, innovative studio production and great songs.

And British!

The Baumer
10-08-2008, 11:38 AM
I too am surprised that no has mentioned Queen in a thread about the best rock band of the 2000s. For shame.

westofyou
10-08-2008, 11:46 AM
I too am surprised that no has mentioned Queen in a thread about the best rock band of the 2000s. For shame.

Yes it's on par with voting Star Wars as the best movie of the 90's

ochre
10-08-2008, 11:50 AM
Personally, I'm not sure record sales are really all that important of an indicator in the modern environment. The distribution and promotion of music is vastly different now than it was when the Beatles were arriving.

The 'genrefication' of 'rock' is probably the biggest factor in the problem with defining the requirements here. You don't see bands with the cross-demographic appeal that seemed to be more prevalent in the early days of rock (this is where I think whoever mentioned John Mayer was probably on to something). In fact, those of us that are over 30 probably wouldn't have been all that keen on the Beatles when they started out anyway :).

Who was the consensus band of the '70s?
'80s?
'90s?

Johnny Footstool
10-08-2008, 12:04 PM
How do you define "most important?" The answer is: you don't; until you can hear their influence in future bands.

So if we consider the following factors, in no particular order:

-influence
-album sales
-critical acclaim
-omnipresence

Radiohead looks like the clear choice, IMO.

nate
10-08-2008, 12:12 PM
I too am surprised that no has mentioned Queen in a thread about the best rock band of the 2000s. For shame.

I was waxing "what-ifically." Sorry if that was unclear.

*BaseClogger*
10-08-2008, 12:14 PM
I always thought of it as "Industrial Pop" because he (NIN is really just Trent Reznor) made "Industrial" music popular. Maybe "Industrial Rock" but not "rock" like, for example, AC/DC.

Almost all contemporary bands can be placed into a sub-genre (maybe that's your point). Green Day can be categorized as punk, Tool as metal, and so on. But they are all rock music...

nate
10-08-2008, 12:23 PM
Almost all contemporary bands can be placed into a sub-genre (maybe that's your point). Green Day can be categorized as punk, Tool as metal, and so on. But they are all rock music...

Sure. Some bands are more on the branches than the roots.

nate
10-08-2008, 12:29 PM
Just for some perspective after nearly 180-some posts. Here's M2's original premise:


It's the stuff of endless barroom banter, but I'm more interested in who the current Greatest Rock 'N' Roll Band in the World is. Is there one? Or is the very notion of that title an anachronism?

Falls City Beer
10-08-2008, 12:54 PM
Sure it is, but it's one of them there subjective discussions.

Wait a minute: I was just told I can't talk about "best" because "best" is a subjective discussion.

I like "best." It's arguable. And I'm always right.

Falls City Beer
10-08-2008, 12:58 PM
So if we consider the following factors, in no particular order:

-influence
-album sales
-critical acclaim
-omnipresence

Radiohead looks like the clear choice, IMO.

I'll never understand the need to turn over your opinion to EW or No Depression.

*You're* the only critic that matters, as long as your sensibility is sufficiently honed.

And "omnipresence" is code for how much money a record company puts behind a band's promotion.

vaticanplum
10-08-2008, 01:17 PM
Does it have to be most important to other bands? What about most important to rock music fans?

Baseclogger, I think the entire point of this thread is that the answers to those questions are up to you. There's no correct answer here. Everyone has legitimate ideas as long as they present their own criteria for why any given band qualifies. It's a discussion.

kaldaniels
10-08-2008, 01:21 PM
So if we consider the following factors, in no particular order:

-influence
-album sales
-critical acclaim
-omnipresence

Radiohead looks like the clear choice, IMO.

The problem with Radiohead is this if you ask me. If you asked 100 people ages 13-40 to name 3 Radiohead songs from the 00's. How many would be able to do that?

I understand your premise and I understand the acclaim they get, but they are too under the radar if you ask me. And on an internet board like Redszone where most members seem up to date on popular culture for lack of a better term, Radiohead is going to get more love. But for the general population...Radiohead is a blip on their radar, if that.

vaticanplum
10-08-2008, 01:22 PM
And "omnipresence" is code for how much money a record company puts behind a band's promotion.

Not in Radiohead's case it's not. They recorded, promoted, and released online their latest album without the backing of a label. Which is precisely one of the reasons I think they're important.

The era in which a band comes to be makes a difference, I think. Who was the first band to take on and conquer a major stadium tour? The "can sell out stadiums" criterion is, in my opinion, a bigger qualifier for that band than any that follow. I spoke to it earlier in the thread, but I think one major thing in Radiohead's favor, besides the quality and originality of their music, is their embracing of the time in which they make music. That *is* and already has had a major effect on other bands.

As for critical acclaim...yes, in the end it's all opinion, but to disregard critics completely is shortsighted IMHO. I don't agree with all critics by a long shot, but I do acknowledge that they have made a career of what they do, and thus they have put a lot more time and effort into analyzing music than I have. In many cases they have a stronger musical foundation than I do. At the very least, they listen to a crapload more music than I do and so have a broader basis for comparison. I may have impeccable taste, but they're accountable for theirs.

nate
10-08-2008, 02:03 PM
Wait a minute: I was just told I can't talk about "best" because "best" is a subjective discussion.

I like "best." It's arguable. And I'm always right.

Yes. To the former.

Not the latter.

;)

Falls City Beer
10-08-2008, 07:05 PM
As for critical acclaim...yes, in the end it's all opinion, but to disregard critics completely is shortsighted IMHO. I don't agree with all critics by a long shot, but I do acknowledge that they have made a career of what they do, and thus they have put a lot more time and effort into analyzing music than I have. In many cases they have a stronger musical foundation than I do. At the very least, they listen to a crapload more music than I do and so have a broader basis for comparison. I may have impeccable taste, but they're accountable for theirs.

Critics, by and large, are hacks. Particularly ones who write for major publications. And particularly for popular art forms. An astonishing number are unlearned, myopic, and reactionary. Few dwell on where the art of a great album lies, or worse, they parrot what others have already said--then repackage it.

Far more intelligent music discussion/appreciation occurs on fan sites, IMO.

M2
10-08-2008, 08:07 PM
Critics, by and large, are hacks. Particularly ones who write for major publications. And particularly for popular art forms. An astonishing number are unlearned, myopic, and reactionary. Few dwell on where the art of a great album lies, or worse, they parrot what others have already said--then repackage it.

Far more intelligent music discussion/appreciation occurs on fan sites, IMO.

I'm with you. Far more intelligent discussion is going on here. I remember back when Steve Morse of the Boston Globe panned "Nevermind." I had first heard "Smells Like Teen Spirit" on a college radio station when it was the pre-release single and I turned my car radio up as loud as it could go. I called some friends later that day to tell them that apparently Nirvana had a new album out and the first song completely, totally rocked.

Morse, a slave to '70s AOR, didn't get it, couldn't hear that this was the sound my generation had been working toward, arena punk as the gentlemen in Urge Overkill dubbed it. And that makes me wonder if I'm equipped to hear the next big thing any better than Morse was in 1991. Rolling Stone consistently turns its nose up at great albums - the publication seems to take offense if the band is having too much fun.

MilotheMayor
10-08-2008, 08:14 PM
Rolling Stone consistently turns its nose up at great albums - the publication seems to take offense if the band is having too much fun.This is the truth. They hand out obligatory five-star reviews to anything crapped out by Bob Dylan or any other has-been classic artist. Then theymight hand out a 3 1/2 star review to a new artist who shows promise. It is always entertaining to read their reviews for reissued classics as they always have to recant their past attempt to undersell the artist.

*BaseClogger*
10-08-2008, 08:24 PM
Baseclogger, I think the entire point of this thread is that the answers to those questions are up to you. There's no correct answer here. Everyone has legitimate ideas as long as they present their own criteria for why any given band qualifies. It's a discussion.

I understand that, but a discussion is kept going when we look at what others have to say and make observations. Otherwise, their would be no conversation; we would be talking to ourselves... :)

Johnny Footstool
10-09-2008, 09:45 AM
I'll never understand the need to turn over your opinion to EW or No Depression.

*You're* the only critic that matters, as long as your sensibility is sufficiently honed.

And "omnipresence" is code for how much money a record company puts behind a band's promotion.

"Sufficiently honed," according to...?

And you shouldn't assume I only consider the opinions of "professional" critics when I refer to critical acclaim.

The whole purpose of bringing up critical acclaim is to point out that many people with allegedly "sufficiently honed" sensibilities tend to be in agreement about this particular band.

As far as omnipresence, how much money did a record company put behind "In Rainbows"?

Falls City Beer
10-09-2008, 06:09 PM
As far as omnipresence, how much money did a record company put behind "In Rainbows"?

Whatever it put behind all the albums they didn't self-release?


"Sufficiently honed," according to...?

It doesn't take all that long to discover who knows his/her stuff.

Johnny Footstool
10-09-2008, 06:29 PM
Money alone didn't advance Radiohead to the point that they could self-release a huge album. Sure, it helped in the beginning, when "Creep" and "Fake Plastic Trees" were getting top-40 radio airplay. Record companies invited listeners to the party, but it was Radiohead's talent that got people to stay.

Fallout Boy, for example, received a lot of exposure courtesy of their record company, but their lack of substance has pretty much emptied the room by now.

vaticanplum
10-09-2008, 07:50 PM
This is the truth. They hand out obligatory five-star reviews to anything crapped out by Bob Dylan or any other has-been classic artist. Then theymight hand out a 3 1/2 star review to a new artist who shows promise. It is always entertaining to read their reviews for reissued classics as they always have to recant their past attempt to undersell the artist.

This is no commentary on critics one way or the other, but Bob Dylan's last few albums have been fantastic. Some of my favorite stuff of his entire career.

MilotheMayor
10-09-2008, 08:28 PM
This is no commentary on critics one way or the other, but Bob Dylan's last few albums have been fantastic. Some of my favorite stuff of his entire career.I know that Modern Times and Love and Theft are critically acclaimed everywhere. The main point I was pushing across was that Rolling Stone simply favors the output of veteran artists, perhaps too much at time.

ochre
10-09-2008, 09:02 PM
I know that Modern Times and Love and Theft are critically acclaimed everywhere. The main point I was pushing across was that Rolling Stone simply favors the output of veteran artists, perhaps too much at time.
Do fans of emerging acts read magazines?

ochre
10-09-2008, 09:22 PM
And that makes me wonder if I'm equipped to hear the next big thing any better than Morse was in 1991.
We're all just sitting around prognosticating on who is going to be the next Webb Pierce.

Betterread
10-09-2008, 10:57 PM
This is no commentary on critics one way or the other, but Bob Dylan's last few albums have been fantastic. Some of my favorite stuff of his entire career.

If Bob Dylan is in the discussion, then you have to add Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and Judy Collins. All are far superior artists and musicians.

The Baumer
10-10-2008, 02:03 AM
If you're going to mention those dudes then you have to mention Mozart. Dude was a genius.

The Baumer
10-10-2008, 02:04 AM
Dude.

Cyclone792
10-10-2008, 05:32 AM
Dude.

He likes Creedence, but boy does he hate the Eagles.

nate
10-10-2008, 09:15 AM
We're all just sitting around prognosticating on who is going to be the next Webb Pierce.

You should see Webb's car at the Country Music Hall of Fame.

It's really quite something.

Unassisted
10-10-2008, 09:24 AM
Here's another vote for Coldplay. They have achieved a ubiquity in this decade that no other band has matched.

With the way the recording industry is disintegrating in this decade, I wonder if the 10s will see even one band achieve that kind of prominence.

Highlifeman21
10-10-2008, 04:50 PM
If you're going to mention those dudes then you have to mention Mozart. Dude was a genius.

Was a genius....

.... until rheumatic fever claimed his life.

Redhook
12-11-2008, 11:11 PM
Kings of Leon

Fantastic.

*BaseClogger*
12-12-2008, 12:13 AM
Kings of Leon

Fantastic.

I'd have to agree. I didn't think they were for me, but I'm hooked on the new album...

Redhook
12-12-2008, 08:35 AM
I'd have to agree. I didn't think they were for me, but I'm hooked on the new album...

The new album is pretty good, but their older albums are much more original. The more I listen to them the better they get.

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2008, 10:33 AM
The new album is pretty good, but their older albums are much more original. The more I listen to them the better they get.

I just got "Aha Shake Heartbreak" and "Only by the Night". Both are absolutely brilliant.

M2
12-12-2008, 01:22 PM
I just got "Aha Shake Heartbreak" and "Only by the Night". Both are absolutely brilliant.

I'll be the one to show you the way
You'll be the one to always complain
Three in the morning come-a bang bang bang
All out of fags and I just can't wait
Cancel the thing that I said I'd do
I don't feel comfortable talkin' to you
'Less you got the zipper fixed on my shoe
Then I'll be in the lobby drinking for two

*BaseClogger*
12-12-2008, 04:56 PM
The new album is pretty good, but their older albums are much more original. The more I listen to them the better they get.

Then I'll have to check those ones out too... :)