Music's Lost Decade

[TheDoc9]

I wouldn't call any of them genius, I'd call them studied, drunk, or high. Depending on what era and style of music we're talking about.

Lada gaga happens to be the latest big show, there's nothing impressive about what she talks about other than the way she talks about it.

I haven’t heard dream theater in awhile, queensrych wasn’t bad but the lyrics are often so strange they’d never sell in today’s market. Who knows maybe limp biscuits can make a comeback with one of their covers.

 

[Deudalus]

30 years from now, nobody is going to consider any music from 2000-2010 a "classic" song.

There will always be The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, ACDC, Guns N' Roses, Michael Jackson, etc, for as long as I'm going to be around. But.. in 2040, nobody is going to give a damn about any of these clowns that are popular today.

Gotta disagree.

Radiohead, The Killers, Muse, Beck, Dave Matthews Band, Coldplay, The Gorillaz, Modest Mouse, Kings of Leon, John Mayer, Norah Jones, The White Stripes, and many more bands will be remembered.

Are any of those bands going to be "The Beatles" no, but then no one is "The Beatles" either. They were a one time thing where a band came along with just the right sound at just the right time similar to Nirvana.

I would hardly consider Guns N' Roses by the way to be a ground breaking band. They had 2 good albums and then they were gone.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Don't forget Davey Knowles, The Black Keys, and you're right. I doubt we could ever see a phenomenon like The Beatles again, they were way past popular, and way past talented. Being popular doesn't always mean talented, and that's proven at every grammy show.

 

[MrEgo]

Gotta disagree.

Radiohead, The Killers, Muse, Beck, Dave Matthews Band, Coldplay, The Gorillaz, Modest Mouse, Kings of Leon, John Mayer, Norah Jones, The White Stripes, and many more bands will be remembered.

Are any of those bands going to be "The Beatles" no, but then no one is "The Beatles" either. They were a one time thing where a band came along with just the right sound at just the right time similar to Nirvana.

I would hardly consider Guns N' Roses by the way to be a ground breaking band. They had 2 good albums and then they were gone.

I'm not sure I would classify half of those bands as a "2000-2010" band, even though they may have released albums in the last 10 years. Their gimmicks were made famous way before 2000.

The other half I seriously doubt will be played at a sporting event, a piano bar, a TV commerical, a movie soundtrack, etc, 30 years from now. I mentioned Guns N' Roses because how often do you hear Welcome to the Jungle, Sweet Child of Mine, November Rain, Paradise City, etc, in every day life? Appetite for Destruction was released almost 23 years ago, and you can't go very long without hearing one of their songs simply due to the fact that you hear noise in every day life. I wasn't implying that they are the greatest band ever, but they will have much more staying power and replayability than anything from 2000-2010.

Now that I think of it, replayability is probably my most important factor in determing what's good and what isn't, which is why I agree that this is the lost decade for music. I can only take this crap so much, and that's not very much. 30 years from now, I believe that the oldies stations are still going to be playing classic rock from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and the "oldies" from 2000-2010 will not be very well remembered.

 

[StageLeft]

Pop songs (Poop songs) come and go.

\m/ METAL IS FOREVER! \m/

you are all so "continental US". you dont see the world outside.
the Scandinavian metal scene has exploded in the past 10 years in an exponential rate and produced many metal legends that will be remembered for many years to come by loyal fans.

unlike pop fans who just go by whatever lady-boy-named-after-a-drink tells them to.

I assume you're not joking, which makes for a sad panda. Most people don't care about heavy metal. Not now, not in the past, not in the future. I certainly cannot name a single scandinavian metal group nor would I ever want to be able to name one. Hmm, on second thought maybe you were joking. I'm not sure.

Now that I think of it, replayability is probably my most important factor in determing what's good and what isn't, which is why I agree that this is the lost decade for music. I can only take this crap so much, and that's not very much. 30 years from now, I believe that the oldies stations are still going to be playing classic rock from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and the "oldies" from 2000-2010 will not be very well remembered.

Literally half my life ago I was working out in a gym and all it played was 70's stuff. I now want to die in a fire when I hear classic rock. I cannot stand it. I cannot even emphasize how much I never want to hear another song by Boston or Journey ever again in my life. I would sooner plunge a knife into the side of my head. Everything is relative.

 

[MrEgo]

Ha.. a little dramatic?

 

[StageLeft]

Ha.. a little dramatic?

This is more than a feeling; it is instinct at my core unflappable the hatred.

 

[daishi5]

I'm not sure I would classify half of those bands as a "2000-2010" band, even though they may have released albums in the last 10 years. Their gimmicks were made famous way before 2000.

The other half I seriously doubt will be played at a sporting event, a piano bar, a TV commerical, a movie soundtrack, etc, 30 years from now. I mentioned Guns N' Roses because how often do you hear Welcome to the Jungle, Sweet Child of Mine, November Rain, Paradise City, etc, in every day life? Appetite for Destruction was released almost 23 years ago, and you can't go very long without hearing one of their songs simply due to the fact that you hear noise in every day life. I wasn't implying that they are the greatest band ever, but they will have much more staying power and replayability than anything from 2000-2010.

Now that I think of it, replayability is probably my most important factor in determing what's good and what isn't, which is why I agree that this is the lost decade for music. I can only take this crap so much, and that's not very much. 30 years from now, I believe that the oldies stations are still going to be playing classic rock from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and the "oldies" from 2000-2010 will not be very well remembered.

None of what you listed has lasted anywhere near as long as Mozart's music, it is obvious that music has been all downhill after Mozart.

 

[PingSpike]

Listen, I like 60s and 70s music quite a bit too but the people in this thread pointing out how often these songs are still played and how many commercials they're in as evidence of their everlasting quality are out to lunch. The reason that that music hasn't vanished from public consumption yet is the baby boomers are the largest generation ever and that is the crap they were listening to while getting drunk back in high school. And the reason that stuff is still played so much is because it can be used to sell life insurance to your dad.

I have no doubt that when I'm 50 years old they'll be blasting Nirvana over a commercial where a boring new sedan drives moderately fast around a closed track.

 

[Robor]

I did this, found several artists I like. I bought several songs from their links as well. To my shame I discovered I like Brittney Spears new music.

LOL... No worries. My favorite band is Tool but I like some stuff by John Denver and Neil Diamond. Brittney, not so much but we all have our shame to bear.

One thing surprised me about Pandora... I'm tired of Chris Cornell's voice. Between Temple of the Dog, Soundgarden, and Audioslave I just can't take it anymore. And I used to love Soundgarden.

 

[intangir]

I assume you're not joking, which makes for a sad panda. Most people don't care about heavy metal. Not now, not in the past, not in the future. I certainly cannot name a single scandinavian metal group nor would I ever want to be able to name one. Hmm, on second thought maybe you were joking.

I don't think he was joking. From what I hear from my European contacts, metal is still highly relevant there.

And why exactly does it matter if "most people don't care about heavy metal" anyway? Wasn't the point of this discussion that music cannot be evaluated based on its popularity? What most people in USA/Canada care about now is that top 40 mainstream crap. That's why it has the label "mainstream".

And if you're only concerned with what's popular in the USA/Canada, well, that's all right I guess. But say so. I think this musical dark age only involves North America, much like the Dark Ages was a Eurocentric term. Certainly I've no shortage of good new music to listen to from Asia or Europe, which combined dwarf the population of North America. From my experience, most Western musical influences come from Europe and not so much from North America.

 

[MrEgo]

I have no doubt that when I'm 50 years old they'll be blasting Nirvana over a commercial where a boring new sedan drives moderately fast around a closed track.

Nirvana was not in the decade in question, but I assume your point still stands if you replace Nirvana with Justin Timberlake or Black Eyed Peas? If that's the case, then I disagree. I don't think JT or BEP will be a representation of classic oldies a few decades from now.

Baby boomers are not the only ones that listen to baby boomer generation music.

 

[PingSpike]

I actually have no idea what it would be. I went to high school in the 90s so I extrapolated to my own generation. Anyway, Justin Toiletsnake is a pure pop act...you'd have to replace 90s Nirvana with something like early Britney Spears or backstreet boys to make that point stand. Forgive me, I'm getting old and its all starting to blur together. I'm having trouble coming up with the 2000s version of Nirvana.

 

[Ns1]

Baby boomers are not the only ones that listen to baby boomer generation music.

truth.

 

[MrEgo]

I actually have no idea what it would be. I went to high school in the 90s so I extrapolated to my own generation. Anyway, Justin Toiletsnake is a pure pop act...you'd have to replace 90s Nirvana with something like early Britney Spears or backstreet boys to make that point stand. Forgive me, I'm getting old and its all starting to blur together. I'm having trouble coming up with the 2000s version of Nirvana.

Linkin' Park.. Nickelback.. maybe? I was just trying to replace Nirvana with something equally as popular.

 

[StageLeft]

And why exactly does it matter if "most people don't care about heavy metal" anyway? Wasn't the point of this discussion that music cannot be evaluated based on its popularity?

I mean I don't think many North Americans at least will be listening to it in 20 years if they aren't now.

In regard to North American music dark ages, I don't know. I have to say I realized recently that despite not living in Europe I disproportionately listen to their music, it seems almost half of what I like is from England and it's only 1/6 the size of the US.

 

[Steeplerot]

And if you're only concerned with what's popular in the USA/Canada, well, that's all right I guess. But say so. I think this musical dark age only involves North America, much like the Dark Ages was a Eurocentric term. Certainly I've no shortage of good new music to listen to from Asia or Europe, which combined dwarf the population of North America. From my experience, most Western musical influences come from Europe and not so much from North America.

Agreed, in europe being a DJ/Promoter/Musician is great, and artists are making bank on huge shows.
USA is dead as a doornail musically, and has been going downhill quickly since the early 90's.

What do young people going out want to hear nowadays when going out to dance? 80s. Not 70s or 60s, not their own music even.

As far as the statement about western music originating in europe, not true imo. Usually African-American community here does something that europe picks up and blows up. Usually US corporate label artists will then copy and make bland pre-packaged sounding crap for mainstream (and puritanical) America that kills the fun and another trend starts from the ashes of lameness. Rock and roll or techno for example.

 

[intangir]

I mean I don't think many North Americans at least will be listening to it in 20 years if they aren't now.

Maybe the more appropriate question to ask is if any Scandinavians will be listening to it in 20 years. Or more interesting, whether it will have picked up any new fans by then. Who knows, the pendulum could swing back, and there might be a big metal revival in the USA! Stranger things have come back...

In regard to North American music dark ages, I don't know. I have to say I realized recently that despite not living in Europe I disproportionately listen to their music, it seems almost half of what I like is from England and it's only 1/6 the size of the US.

Yeah, the music scene is international, and it's pretty provincial to just look at the continental US, or whatever, and think of it as typical of the whole world. Having English lyrics tends to be an advantage in gaining a wider audience (as most Eurovision song contestants know), but there're some very nice songs being sung in other languages too!

 

[Deudalus]

The other half I seriously doubt will be played at a sporting event, a piano bar, a TV commerical, a movie soundtrack, etc, 30 years from now. I mentioned Guns N' Roses because how often do you hear Welcome to the Jungle, Sweet Child of Mine, November Rain, Paradise City, etc, in every day life? Appetite for Destruction was released almost 23 years ago, and you can't go very long without hearing one of their songs simply due to the fact that you hear noise in every day life. I wasn't implying that they are the greatest band ever, but they will have much more staying power and replayability than anything from 2000-2010.

So basically what you are saying is they aren't in that "Who Let the Dogs Out" or "I like to move it move it" upper eschelon of musical genius?

C & C Music Factory has gotten more play time that The Beatles in that regard.

 

[Robor]

Linkin' Park.. Nickelback.. maybe? I was just trying to replace Nirvana with something equally as popular.

Where is the barf smiley when you need it?

 

[dainthomas]

I'm having trouble coming up with the 2000s version of Nirvana.

Because there isn't one. I'm sure that there was some decent stuff the last ten years, but nothing memorable or groundbreaking.

 

[PingSpike]

I guess their really isn't one that I can think of. I reached for Linkin Park as well, but they seem to pop. I think the popularity level matches though, and maybe the definition of the new genreness. I guess the 2000s greatest innovation may be the combination of rap with rock. There were certainly acts that did that before, but it seems to have reached a fever pitch during this decade. In many cases, these bastard offspring are abominations...but that was probably true of any generation.

That said, don't listen to me. I spend most of my time listening to the Cure still so I'm not exactly up to date on things. I have noticed that the radio stations I listened to when I was a kid have mostly aged with me and play old shit that I like still as a matter of course.

 

[Robor]

Because there isn't one. I'm sure that there was some decent stuff the last ten years, but nothing memorable or groundbreaking.

Coldplay? Maybe a reach but they've put out several successful albums.

 

[spittledip]

Rock has a future in fusion.

 

[Munky]

Coldplay? Maybe a reach but they've put out several successful albums.

::barf:: I'd rather hear Nickelback than Coldplay