When I say great potential, I mean bands that in 10-20 years will be looked upon as the best of our generation. Bands that could potentially have albums that compare to the likes of The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Radiohead, Bob Dylan, Velvet Underground etc.

Personally I think we are amidst a great time in music. Sure most of the top 40 and radio play dribbled can be written off, and sure we have just as many bad bands as good. I think the reason the world is like this, is that everyone seems to feel like they have something to contribute.

Bands like Nickleback, Three days Grace, My Chemical Romance, hinder, blah blah blah etc. They don't have a shot in hell at being remember, THEY"LL BE REPLACED! by more and more crappy bands

Use this thread to promote your favourite bands and the most talented artist working today. There are alot of no bullshit artists, and I would like to hear about them

ARCADE FIRE - Sure... It's kinda obvious for this band to be on any list like this, but the fact is there might not be a better or bigger band out there right now then them. They have 2 great albums already release, both of which are already viewed as some of the best ever. There 3rd album is gunna be a challenge. They have already hit other bands high points, lets hope the can keep it up.

TV ON THE RADIO - 2 great albums and a wholly origonal sound. Unfortunately the complexities of there work take a long time to produce, So it'll be hard for them to stay in the public eye for along time, but while they last they'll be great.

LCD SOUNDSYSTEM - Look at 2007. Was there a bigger act. Two acclaimed albums and enough great songs to define most others career's. If he keeps dancin, then so will I.

ANIMAL COLLECTIVE(And Panda Bear -solo-) - If there's a band that will replace the beatles, I think it could be them. They have a very unique and intellegent pop sound. Every member is a genious on there own. There next 4 albums I think will be some of the most critically acclaimed ever. MARK MY WORDS. They've hit there stride, and they've got rocket's on there shoes.

JOANNA NEWSOME - Jimi hendrix meets Tom wiats meets Joni Mitchell. I would marry this woman...lol Unfortunately for her she's got a big rock to climb if she is even thinking about topping Ys.

MY MORNING JACKET - Last band on my list. Sure they've been at it for a while, but this year there gunna explode. Look for phrases like THE NEW LED ZEPPLIN to float around. This band rocks

Other Band worth mentioning : The National, MIA, Sufjan Stevens, The Raconteurs, The shins

But at the end of the day - really comparable to The Beatles? Stones? Dylan? I do not think so...
In 20 years,90% of the stuff coming out now will be forgotten...

^^Yep^^

I think the music industry is going through a big purge right now. We'll have to wait a few more years for music to get back on its feet.

I Agree. About 90% of all of today's music isnt not worth the time or the money. It's the 10% That I want you to talk about. What music is moving you right now?

Kevin, you're living too much in the present. Bad attitude.

80 of my top 100 favoutie albums are pre 1990. How is that living in the presnt. my favourite form of music is Jazz??? EXPLAIN.Favourite Artists are BOB DYLAN, TOMA WAITS, RADIOHEAD, THE BEATLES, THE ROLLING STONES, MILES DAVIS.

Explain? All Im trying to accomplish with this thread is to simple find what bands others are interested in these days. Thanks though!

If there's a band that will replace the beatles, I think it could be them.

This is what I mean.

Plus, you sound a bit hysterical ("EXPLAIN"). People who live in the past have a laid-back and cool attitude.

Key word in my sentence is THINK. I THINK it could be them. meaning IF there was to be a band that could measure up to the beatles in that genre of music. IT could be them


I guess now we're bashing personal opinions on a site founded on them.

Please use this thread for what I asked for. If you dont wanna list your favourite musicians of this decade, then dont write at all. It seems some people are simply not using it for its purpose, but rather to state meaningless things.

I don't think Animal Collective have ANY chance of replacing the Beatles.

Remember how The Beatles (and Elvis) got their start. They were a POP band loved by teeny boppers. They were like an early sixties boy band. Their concert were drowned out by hordes of screaming 16-year-old girls. They were Tiger Beat material.

Although they matured musically, they remained a POP band to the end of their career. In the last years they were making Hey Jude and Long and Winding Road--very melodic stuff suitable for mass consumption.

Animal Collective is NOT at all suitable for mass consumption. They do not have any real pop appeal.

Dylan was also a major cultural phenomenon. He was not as poppy, but he stood for something. He was identified with an entire cultural movement.

One of the things that made the 1960s music special was that it was artistically good and loved (or loathed) by a wide spectrum of the public. I don't see a similar unifying rock band today. Even when I was in high school in the 1980s, most of the kids loved 1960s bands like The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and the doors. And I think these Sixties bands are STILL pretty popular with the kids these days.

The niche artists of today are more comparable to the niche artists of the 1960s (e.g., the Holy Modal Rounders or The Velvet Underground).

If another Beatles ever comes along, we will all know about it, because their music will sound great AND they will be on the cover of Life Magazine (or whatever today's counterpart happens to be).

The closest thing we have seen since the 1980s is Hip Hop. The best/most popular hip hop performers are the Stones/Dylan/Beatles of today's generation. As a cultural phenomenon, Eminem was the Jim Morrison of his era.

The best new band of the world (better and bigger than the Beatles or anyone else) is :
BRYAN SCARY & THE SHREDDING TEARS
I've never heard something that great.
The first album ("The shredding tears") was released in 2006 and the sophomore ("The flight of the knife") is gonna be released on april 1st.
It's perfect pop music.

One more point. I think Nirvana might have been the last REALLY important rock band (from a cultural standpoint). You could make an argument for Radiohead, but I don't think they ever reached the sort of mass appeal/notoriety of Nirvana. Maybe so, in which case they would be the last.

Other than hip hop, Pop/Rock music these days is so disposable. Everyone is always looking for the next hip thing which becomes passe as soon as it is discovered. One minute its Jens Leckman. The next its Vampire Weekend.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Arcade Fire or Of Montreal or The Shins will have the same kind of lasting impact as the big rock bands from the era before hip hop.

I think Bob Dylan is a great artist of the current generation. I believe his albums ("Time Out of Mind," "Love and Theft," "Modern Times") will be seen as great 20 years from now.

Of course, he doesn't measure up to someone like, say, Bob Dylan (1963-1976, R.I.P.), but he's pretty good.

You're probably right about The Arcade Fire, unless they go down the Franz Ferdinand road.

Radiohead shouldn't be up there with the greats. Radiohead is the band of the current generation.

The White Stripes were going to be great, but then they lost it.

TV On The Radio are really fun, but will they expand enough?

Animal Collective are probably too quirky to get that level of acclaim.

Joanna Newsom's album was really great, but another album along those same lines wouldn't get too much acclaim. I don't really think she'll turn into someone else good overnight.

Not too convinced about My Morning Jacket.

LCD Soundsystem is off to a great start, and could be really great, if its palette became wider.

Too bad Elliott Smith killed himself. He could have been truly great, if he'd tried.

(By the way, Kevin. Lighten up. Get a sense of humor. It's screaming at you to have itself upon you.)

Really, what a great band would need to do nowadays would be to have a bit of something for everyone. Most stick to their niches, though. (Even Radiohead. They've gone from rock to electronica and then to a hybrid, yeah. But they've stayed in the gloom niche.)

I'm a bit allergic to exclamation marks!!! And concerning the CAPITAL letters ALL over, we're not blind.

As the thread title mentions new bands, we should exclude Dylan and Radiohead. What is the definition of new? Debut album less than 5 years old? Then skip The Shins too.

I would tip Arcade Fire as well and Kanye West (he's not my cup of tea, but the rapper of the current generation).

Who knows, in 20 years from now we will all (have to) like Chinese music. Sorry, with all this bad news about Tibet going on, I get a bit carried away.

No, doesn't mention new bands.

The Flaming Lips qualify. Or will, if they miraculously get their stuff together again.

Sinder, you might want to read the title again, it starts with the two words.

The Flaming Lips are more than 20 years old, still having great potential?

I know, I was being sarcastic.

Debut album less than 5 years old?

Skip My Morning Jacket (1999)

The Flaming Lips are more than 20 years old, still having great potential?

They did it twice and a half. They can do it again, if they set their minds to it!

(I'm thinking, though, it's more important to be a band of the present than a band of merely the recent.)

It's a pity The Libertines split up - I really thought they were one of the best bands of this decade(OK so they may have hardly been that original but they still kicked ass) - don't like Babyshambles

Guess I should have clarified a bit more. I can understand the feeling that in 20 years Dylan's latest will be remembered.

I was more thinkinh along the lines of band that had started making music within the last 10 years or so. Not putting a specific date on it, but generally around that time frame.

Who's excited about the new MY BLOODY VALENTINE release. That should be kool. I'd like that style of usic to come back. (Pavement, sonic Youth, The Modern Lovers)

I'm pretty pumped about it. I'm just concerned with how long we'll have to wait. Wasn't it supposed to come out by end of 2007? Oh, Mr. Shields, when it comes to time commitments, you are quite the cheeky monkey.

I think there's lots of great bands now, and have always been and will always be, but IMPORTANT bands? I don't think that will happen again for a long time. Arcade Fire are great, so are the White Stripes, but they're not Nirvana, U2 or, heck, even ABBA, and definitely not the Beatles! My MOM knew those groups. Even Dylan's new stuff is great, but from a cultural standpoint it's pretty unremarkable.

Take a look at that 50 best years list
Latest acclaimed year was 1991
Rock music is like jazz and classical music : best years far behind.

I think the reason this decade is so low on that poll is quite simple really. we have had our end of the decade lists come out. Where woud nevermind and OK computer be without those lists?

The person who writes Fast N' Bulbous had a good point when he wrote his best albums since 1965 article.

http://www.fastnbulbous.com/best_since_1965.htm

"The top of the list favors 60s and 70s albums. Does that mean that music in the last 24 years isn't as good? Not necessarily. Earlier in history, there were fewer bands, and certainly fewer albums being produced. The great ones that came out were extremely important and had a huge cultural impact. This hasn't happened as much since the 80s. And the albums that did have a huge impact, like Thriller, Born In The U.S.A., Purple Rain and The Joshua Tree, while parts of them were great, were weakened by tracks that were tainted by a particular kind of 80s suckiness. Blame it on the production, hair, or just questionable taste, but they just haven't aged that well. I believe there's been more great music produced overall since the mid 90s. But it's more difficult to single out ones that are "classic" amongst all the excellent choices.."

You have a point. There is far to much music being made. Another problem is, If you get one great band with a disticnt sound, you'll get 5 more that feel they can do it better, then 5 on top of them. we get subjected to far to much to make an rational decision on whats more important.

Bands that seem to separte themselves from the pack in the way that they simply can't be copied, are the ones that seem to have long term appeal.

Captain Beefheart?
The Velvet Underground?
The Beatles?
Radiohead?

That's why I see bands like TV ON THE RADIO, ANIMAL COLLECTIVE, ARCADE FIRE, LCD SOUNDSYSTEM, THE WHITE STRIPES. They dont seem to have anyone out there that can rival there unique sound.

You could also argue that one has to DIE in order to be remembered these days. Kurt Kobain, elliot SMith, Jeff Buckley. dont get me wrong, I like all of them. But did either of them really do enough work to be remembered in the same light as other legendary bands?

I totally agree with his first few sentences, basically that fewer albums = greater impact, etc (and let's never forget the role of the music press in "creating" classics). I totally disagree with any broad references to '80s suckiness, which usually refers to a particular cheesy production gloss which is not nearly as uniform and universal as it is assumed to be. I find the rote dismissal of the '80s to be one of the most common biases in music journalism, although it can serve as quite a reliable signpost for ignorance

I think the reason the eights is often written off is that there seem to be far to many turning points. They seem to have reinvented themselves every year. Micheal Jackson and prince, Talking Heads, Sonic Youth and the pixies, Bruce Springsteen and Steve earle. It simply wasnt like the 70's were you were drawn into basiclly 2 catagories ROCK or Disco.

Thats also the problem with today as well. I personally find it hard to be both a rap fan and a rock fan. but I do try hard

If you look at his list you will see that he actually likes a lot of 80's music and gives plenty 10 ratings. I think he was just talking about the mainstream "impact" 80's records. I love Fast N' Bulbous.

The thing I like about the 80's is this.

alot of my favourite artists worked through the 80's. Either came from the 70's and entered the 80's or Came from the 80's but became great in the 90's.

But of course like any idea there are exceptions like Prince, Pixies, Minutemen, etc....there are more I just dont wanna right an essay.

80's to me had alot of career defining work for 70's starting bands, or bands starting in the 80's that became great in the 90's.

I Might be the only who feels like that though, so.

I do too, John. I've discovered a lot of great music from his lists (particularly lots of world and metal stuff). His taste is far more diverse than Scaruffi's, although I've discovered lots of stuff from him as well. I don't think FnB's a great writer - kind of reminds me of Roger Ebert, someone whose taste I love because it's broad enough to include almost everything from Hollywood blockbusters to the most offbeat cult, but who can't seem to write a coherent review. For me, though, Christgau will always be the best - his lists have really helped me to re-evaluate all kinds of music that I'd summarily dismissed or ignored.

Bands that seem to separte themselves from the pack in the way that they simply can't be copied, are the ones that seem to have long term appeal.

Captain Beefheart?- Hell no- no chance for long term appeal- Only people who are avant garde elitists like him.
The Velvet Underground?- Hell no- only a small fragment of music is influence by them
The Beatles?- certainly the biggest influence on rock and pop music that last 45 years
Radiohead?- maybe

Velvet Underground small influence?

Why anyone would mention Captain Beefhart in the same sentence with the Beatles is virtually moronic.

The Beatles influence on just American folk rock alone justifies their greatness and distintive sound.

Richie Unterberger Folk Rock Discography

The Beatles, Meet the Beatles (1964, Capitol). Not a folk-rock album, but the one record that more than any other awakened young American folk musicians to the possibilities of electric rock music. The Meet the Beatles LP, as opposed to With the Beatles (their second British LP, which has much of the same material and is the one that was reissued on CD), is what's necessary to re-create the impact, as it's almost wholly devoted to original songs, including two great ones ("I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "I Saw Her Standing There") that don't appear on With the Beatles.

The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night (1964, Capitol). Songs from and recorded right after the making of the movie of the same name, which was about as influential on early folk-rock musicians as the Meet the Beatles album was. You can hear some folky influences creeping into their work, too, on songs like "Things We Said Today" and "I'll Be Back."

The Beatles, Beatles for Sale (1964, Capitol). More music that, if only unconsciously, continued to help bring folk and rock closer together, explicitly so on "I'm a Loser" and "I'll Follow the Sun."

So, it was the Beatles, and not Dylan after all

Velvet Underground small influence?

I think the Velvet Undegroud had more than just a influence on rock music. Though I tend to agree their music does not crossover influence wise into other genres. Their influence is limited to rock music. Their long term appeal to record buyers is nill.

What is long-term? I bought Velvet Underground records only a few weeks ago. That's 40+ years after their release. I'd say The Velvet Underground is every bit as long-term as The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan or The Beatles.

There's no one who's listened to The Velvet Underground and hasn't learned something new.

"Christgau will always be the best - his lists have really helped me to re-evaluate all kinds of music that I'd summarily dismissed or ignored."

Does he have other lists than the Deans Lists?

i'm not sure which lists the Dean's Lists refers to, but I have two sources I use for his lists - one is at www.rocklist.net and the other is the Consumer Guide at his own website www.robertchristgau.com, where you can type in a year and see his grades for that year - also great samples of his writing style

I did not realize you could do that with his site. I always just went by artist and looked at the Deans list which is his Pazz and Jop list. Thanks for the heads up.

I agree with you that the Velvet Undergroud were a big influence but please don't compare their record sales to the Beatles. It's not even close. There are the wrongs bands to be compared to each other.

But we're not comparing record sales, and neither are we comparing popularity. The Beatles are mainstream, of course they have higher record sales. We're talking influential, and on that we can most definitely compare The Velvet Underground with The Beatles.