Band of the aughts?

[*BaseClogger*]

Don't forget the shock and awe.

Shock and awe translates into popularity...

[cincyinco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What the hell happened?

No one's writing timeless songs anymore.

[gonelong]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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*]

No one's writing timeless songs anymore.

Or you guys are getting old!

[M2]

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]

Or you guys are getting old!

Get off my lawn!

[nate]

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]

Don't forget the shock and awe.

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