Who will be THIS generations zeppelin, floyd, beatles, etc....

[phatboy444]

My list of bands that will be remembered and renowned as The Beatles, Stones, etc... would consist on the following:

Radiohead
Tool
Rage Against the Machine
Nirvana
Pearl Jam
Phish
Alice in Chains
Soundgarden
Stone Temple Pilots (maybe)
Eminem
Dr. Dre
Snoop Dogg
SRV (this generation?)
Prince (this generation...?)
The White Stripes (possible)
Beck
Metallica
Pantera
Slayer
Dj Shadow
NIN
The Roots (could be)
..................................

That's all i can manage right now....I'm sure i'll think of more.

[caterinka]

You've sorta mixed some genres and ages together there.

SRV will have to be remembered in any age's category of all time great musicians.

Phish is kinda like a Greatful Dead for the new millenium, with their marathon concerts and fanatic following.

Nirvana gets special mention for having the Brilliant Tragically Dead From Lifestyle Guy like The Doors and The Who.

And you left U2 completely off your list!

:D ;)

[ironchef9000]

I don't know that any of them will be remembered in the same light.... The entire industry now is completely different from what it once was, what with all the availible means of exposure....


...The great bands made their name with tours, word of mouth, and albums that began as nothing slowly became "THE" albums, and the careers were built off that...

....not to mention some artists would release up to two new albums each year, insane....


....If I had to choose, i'd see U2, Nirvana, and Metallica all having a well-remembered past, considering these bands have created masterwork albums.

As for rap, I really have no idea considering i'm not the biggest fan, but certainly run-DMC, Tupac, Dre, Eminem, and Snoop "D-O double-gizzle fo' shizzle" will be looked back upon...and certainly Dre's two "chronic" albums will be seen as masterpieces.

[space6donkey]

Talking Heads
Pixies
Pop Will Eat Itself
Future Sound of London (they slowly seem to be turning into Pink Floyd)
Meat Beat Manifesto (as well as Jack Dangers solo stuff)

...I could go on and on and on...but I won't. I'm also not sure if the 1st 3 belong to "This Generation", I sure don't...

I think that the lesser known artists will have a greater impact in the long run due to the fact many of the higher profile groups are being homoginized to ensure radio success.

just my 2?

[NiTRO]

While I dig artists such as The Future Sound of London, Meat Beat Manifesto, and to some degree Pop Will Eat Itself, in no way do I see them being even remotely thought of in the same breath as The Beatles, The Doors, The Stones, Pink Floyd or The Who. These must be artists that will GENERALLY be remebered by all as not only being important but also successful on a large scale. I'm not including Hip-Hop on this list as that's it's own topic entirely.

Below are 3 tiers of artists whose success was based largely in the 80's, 90's and early 2000s.

Current 1st tier artists are the hugely successful and truly important trend setters and are the bands that will be first mentioned as classics 20 years from now (for instance in 20 yrs bands like Creed will be nowhere near this list):

Nirvana
Pearl Jam
U2
Metallica
Prince
Madonna (love her or hate her, she is important and will help define our genration)
Radiohead


Current 2nd tier bands are just that. They're still hugely successful and important but not quite as iconic as the first tier artists:

Smashing Pumpkins
Coldplay (could move up to 1st tier before they're done)
Stone Roses
Rage Against the Machine
Soundgarden
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Jane's Addiction
Tool
NIN
Beck
Alice in Chains
Depeche Mode

Current 3rd tier artists are those that are still very important but did not achieve the level of success of the 1st and 2nd and in 20 years will not be mentioned in the first breath with bands like Nirvana and U2:

Pixies (One of my personal favorite bands of all time!)
Talking Heads
Flaming Lips
The Verve
The White Stripes
Sublime
The Replacements
Sonic Youth

Of course this list is not all encompasing and there are definitely more bands that can be fit...especially into tier 2 and tier 3. Did I miss any truly 1st tier bands?

Classic rock equivilants of these might be:

1st tier classics: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, The Doors, etc...
2nd tier classics: Janice Joplin, The Kinks, Black Sabboth, Cream, etc...
3rd tier classics: Ten Years After, Humble Pie, Frank Zappa, The Byrds, etc...

[Moldy]

R.E.M., maybe? They've had a long, successful, consistently good career...

[NiTRO]

Originally posted by Moldy
R.E.M., maybe? They've had a long, successful, consistently good career...

Totally agree in fact I thought about including them in my previous post.

[space6donkey]

NiTRO,

I wasn't really thinking about thier commercial success (obviously), but more of thier influence on the musicians that followed them. For example, I seem to remember reading an article back when Nirvana was getting big where Kurt Cobain stated that all he was doing was ripping off the Pixies. But, I guess the fact that the victors are the ones who get to write the history applies here.

I also find it intereseting that your "classic rock 3rd tier" is what my folks listened to when I was growing up, so I guess my sense of who leaves a lasting (commercial) impression is a little skewed.

[S.O.A.D.]

I cant believe no one has brought up System of a Down. Their talent and mixture of music is incredible. I mean we are in a time where U.S. intelligence gives false information to back a war that takes down the largest mass killer of muslims in history. And no one is writing about this stuff? This is like the 60s. We have starving countries that are spending their money on nukes, and the U.S. experiences one of if not it's biggest terrorist attack.
Also, I think you have to remember that we are in a different time. I mean Pink Floyd and Zeppelin's albums were experiences, they really changed the way you think. Dark side of the Moon will never fall beneath bands like Tool and NIN, just because these old bands are legends that outstand time, and each genereation listens to them differently.
I have to say that I am disappointed that i dont think that most of today's bands can even compare to the classics, and I hope that the future will bring more talent and inspiration for music. I think that one of the major differences in today and 30 years ago, is that today its called a "Music Industry", a place where music is produced and built to make money and create an image.

[Jackonicko]

This thread began with the question:

?Who will be THIS generation?s Zeppelin, Floyd, Beatles, etc..??

To me what those bands have in common is massive and near-universal popular appeal and recognition, and a degree of influence on other musicians of their own era, and who followed them. I?d question whether Led Zepp (my favourite of the three bands listed) should even be in the question, since they were popular in a rather more narrow (although more enduring) way. Perhaps the Stones should have been there, though, or Fleetwood Mac, or even the Eagles?

It?s not about technical ability, musicianship, or virtuosity, and it?s not about influence per se, otherwise the list might have included Hendrix, Clapton, etc. It?s really about who made it to the extent of becoming household names, who even your Mum might like?? It?s about real mainstream success and appeal.

Ignoring the fact that there have been several generations since the artists you listed, I?d say that many of the artists being listed, while they might be one particular person?s favourites, have very narrow appeal (relatively speaking) and have very little impact or appeal beyond their fan base and/or genre, and who will not be at the top for very long.

So Tool, Rage Against the Machine, Pearl Jam, Phish, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, The White Stripes, Metallica, Pantera, Slayer, Dj Shadow, NIN, The Roots, the Pixies, Pop Will Eat Itself, Future Sound of London, and Meat Beat Manifesto don?t register on this scale, any more than AC/DC, the B-52s, Hawkwind, the Beat, the Jam, Squeeze, the Buzzcocks, Madness, the Corrs, the Dixie Chicks, or the Pet Shop Boys would. It's not that they're not great, it's just that they're not in quite the same league as the Beatles, even though the sophisticated or interested listener might rate some of them more highly.

I?d agree with those who see a ?second tier? of less popular but venertheless very important artists and bands ? some of whom will be those whose true importance will not become clear for many years ? like Cream (not appreciated until long after they had gone), Bob Dylan (who has lasted and stayed the course, but whose mass appeal was relatively brief and quite controversial) or Nick Drake (hugely influential but little known) or even the Faces (who epitomised an era and an approach to music, but who were ramshackle and enjoyed only modest success.

I?d guess that Stevie Ray Vaughan, the Stone Roses, the Smiths, Joy Division, New Order, Japan, the Pretenders, the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Run DMC, Nirvana, Massive Attack, Portishead, the Fun Lovin Criminals and Radiohead might fit in this category. Nirvana would almost qualify for the first tier, but while their music is important to one generation, it?s not sufficiently easy or melodic for another, but they almost define this second tier of important and influential bands/artists.

I?d guess that the true successors to the bands we began with might be within the following list, and I?d suspect they?d be the ones I like least on the list. Eric Clapton, Talking Heads, Peter Gabriel, The Clash (though perhaps they alienate too many to really count), Duran Duran, Bon Jovi, Michael Jackson, Guns and Roses, Madonna, Prince, U2, Oasis, REM, the Spice Girls, Robbie Williams, Alanis Morissette, and Coldplay.

I don't think Coldplay's complete pre-eminence will last. Two good albums isn't enough to qualify, and some already feel that they're a 'one trick pony'. So regretfully, my prediction for the successors to the Beatles, Floyd etc. are:

Michael Bleedin' Jackson
Madonna
U2

[Bob]

Welcome back!!:D

[eustacescrubb]

I don't think anyone will ever establish themselves like the Beatles, et al, did, precisely because it's already been done. The Beatles were a great band. But wehat made them the Best Band in the World was that they were the first do a bunch of things, or rather, the first with major exposure to do them. When George Martin was doing BRaoque string arrangements in rock songs, everyone was saying things like "Wow! That's never been done before! What genius!"
Now, when any band uses good string arangements by an arranger better than Martin (like Van Dyke Parks or John Paul Jones or even Matt Slocum), the best they can hope for is "The string arrangements are Beatles-esque". Even if they sound nothing like the Beatles.
Studo magicians are compared to the Beach Boys. Every heavy metal band is compared to Led Zepellin. Charismatic lead vocalists to Mick Jagger. Amazing guitarists to Hendrix. Songwriters far better than John Lennon are compared to John Lennon.
So I don't think rock music will ever have bands as ubiqutously popular and influential as the early giants, precisely because no one can be the The First To Do Something.


I don't think Coldplay's complete pre-eminence will last

I was thinking about them when I heard something from the second Coutning Crows album the other day. That band put out two incredible albums, and then, poof, they started to suck.

[Bob]

Well, I still think Coldplay's follow up is a weak record. Two reasonable tracks and the rest is just wishy washy pap - hence I think the have poofed already..........

[eustacescrubb]

Really? I dig A Rush of Blood to the Head waaaay more than Parachutes. I didn't even like the band until their second album.

[Bob]

I'd rather be poked in the eye with a pointy stick than listen to "Rush of blood....." ..................

[TKS]

Personally, for me, BLUE!:D

[Jackonicko]

While it's true, to an extent, that no-one will be the first to do many things (strings in rock songs, for example, or using feedback like Jimi did, or whatever) there is still scope for music which sounds so breathtakingly fresh and new that no-one could deny it. (Unfinished Sympathy by Massive Attack, for example).

But great innovation isn't what made the Beatles, or Floyd, or Led Zepp, great.

The Shadows did it before the Beatles did, and the Beatles merely led a movement, while Led Zepp did very little that hadn't already been done by Hendrix, the Stones, Cream, et al.

What makes a group 'great' is the popularity, consistency, and quality of its body of work, and the existence of some stand-out, all time great albums (and perhaps singles, too). Thus Floyd's long catalogue includes 'Dark Side of the Moon', and 'Wish You Were Here' (their 'Revolver', 'Hard Day's Night' and 'Sergeant Pepper'). That's perhaps why the Stone Roses will never be regarded as 'great' despite their influence (without them there'd have been no Madchester, no Oasis, no Doves, no Embrace, no Charlatans etc.) and despite two stand-out best-selling albums and arguably the best single of the early 90s ('Fool's Gold') and a great single in 1995 ('Love Spreads').

You can be derivative, unoriginal and even bland, and yet still be remembered as a great band. I can barely find five tracks of Queen's that I can bear to have on my iPod (I think there are three) yet I wouldn't dispute their standing, nor that they stand comparison with the Beatles, nor that they are probably 'bigger' than Floyd or Led Zeppelin.

The all time 'Beatles of their day' artists?

1) Presley
2) The Fab Four
3) Bob Dylan
4) The Rolling Stones
5) The Eagles
6) Abba
7) Queen
8) Michael Jackson
9) Madonna
10) U2

while my 'Top ten' most significant/important artists would be a completely different list again

1) John Lee Hooker
2) Billie Holiday
3) Rolling Stones
4) Jimi Hendrix
5) Joni Mitchell
6) Led Zeppelin
7) Bob Marley
8) The Clash
9) Stone Roses
10) Massive Attack

and my own favorites would overlap the above list.....

[dmt1]

Well, I have to respectively have to disagree...The Beatles had so many firsts, and changed the face of rock and roll to such a degree that I think many people take for granted many of their innovations..I think it was more than just leading a movement; IMHO they stand on a pedestal as the kings of pop music. They might not have been the first in some areas, but they were by far the most influential. And had they not come along, my suspicion is rock and roll would be signficantly different than what it has evolved into..

Although they weren't the first group set up in this way, their success standardized what became the most common Rock and Roll setup--drummer, bass, lead guitar, rythm guitar. They gave rock and roll a harder edge, while at the same time popularizing harmony. Before the Beatles, rock groups weren't particularly adept at writing their own material (in fact the Beatles were the inspiration for the Rolling Stones in this regard). In combination with George Martin, they revolutionized the way a rock album was produced and recorded. They brought experimentalization to another level. They had three legitimate incredible songwriters in the band, consistently produced fantastic albums, and no band has or ever will approach their popularity--their timing was perfect.

No one will be able to match this--it's already been done, it's similar to what's happend in Jazz--although there will be more ground breaking, there are only so many chords, and they can be put together in only so many ways (unless you take Yoko Ono into account). That's not to say that there still won't be great music compiled, but it's going to get harder and harder to come up with anything that's truly groundbreaking.

No one IMHO will ever reach the level of popularity of the Beatles, nor have as much influence on other bands as the Beatles because of this. This is not necessarily a negative thing--in this day and age, there is so much more to chose from than in the early '60's, it's going to be much harder for any one single band to approach what the Beatles did.

Dissertation over.

[tntracy]

Originally posted by eustacescrubb
Really? I dig A Rush of Blood to the Head waaaay more than Parachutes. I didn't even like the band until their second album.
I like both Coldplay albums, but I definitely like AROBTTH better. Not that I would classify either album as "timeless" or Coldplay as the next Beatles, Stones, etc. I just like the music!

I saw them in March in concert with The Music - great show.
Originally posted by dmt1
<snip>
Dissertation over.
Well said, Chris. I agree.

Tom

[NiTRO]

I also like Rush of Blood much better than Parachutes. Coldplay are definitely not the next Beatles and never will be. However, they are masterful at writing very simple, catchy, palatable pop rock songs that are melody driven and memorable. While not particularly original in any way, Coldplay have cleverly borrowed well chosen bits and pieces from more influential artists who came before them and carved their own niche in popular music which will certainly be exploited by numerous copy-cat bands looking to cash in on their success.

[Jackonicko]

Coldplay? Just a more commercially attuned, well-focused, more whining version of Travis, in my book.......

But then Travis never broke in the States.

Album: The Man Who.....

[c.c.r.]

nine inch nails.

Trent Reznor is, without a doubt, the best composer of modern times. Eat your freakin heart out, Bach.

[stonersmurf22]

IMHO, THIS generation is not going to end up being remembered for any real changes in rock. Sure, there will be some rock bands which are still remembered and revered, but it will become increasingly hard for any rock to be considered "groundbreaking". What WILL be remebered from this generation will be the emergence of rap music. This is because rap is just truly starting to be discovered. Groups like Run DMC and NWA will be remebered forever by listeners of rap because they really got it started, much like the Beatles. However, I think that in 30 years, when people look back, one of, in no THE, most remebered rappers will be Eminem. This is because Eminem totally changed rap. While everybody else was singing about blunts and 40's, he started shoutin angry rhymes about his mom and wife. He will remembered just like Elvis, who was also controversial in his time, and in the end I think he'll probably have the same amount of impact. I mean, just look at the fact that hes already been in a Very big movie about himself, has been constantly protested against, and has already almost single-handedly made two other rappers big(50 cent and D-12). With all these already done, IMHO he will be the most remebered artist of this generation.

[ltparis]

Originally posted by stonersmurf22
[B]IMHO, THIS generation is not going to end up being remembered for any real changes in rock... What WILL be remebered from this generation will be the emergence of rap music. This is because rap is just truly starting to be discovered. Groups like Run DMC and NWA will be remebered forever by listeners of rap because they really got it started, much like the Beatles.

I would tend to agree with stonersmurf2's assesment. the 50's, 60's and 70's were very groundbreaking for rock music, and each decade had it's own group like Queen, the Beatles, Zepplin, etc. that totaly redefined what rock music was "supposed to be", and in doing so set their styles in stone, only to be copied.

In the 80's and 90's emerged Hip-Hop, and groups like P.E., Rakim, Brand Nubian, LL, Run DMC, etc., defined a whole new genre, innovating and reshaping the music scape. Now in the 2000's, you can see that hip-hop itself is suffering from stale regurgitations. Sure there are a few artists like Jay-Z, Tabil Kweli, Mos Def, and a few others that are still originating, but I think the current generation cannot claim to many newer groups as their own Beatles, or their own Zepplin. The originality is just not what it was 10, 20 years ago.

But who would I say is some of the originators in the past 25 years or so?

Rage
Public Enemy
Eric B and Rakim
Coldplay
Nirvana
Stevie Wonder
Run DMC
Mos Def
Talib Kweli
Mary J Blige

As you can see most of these groups are not new, and can be considered originators in their respecive genres.

[ToddW]

I think Pearl Jam is a good contender. Every album they come out with sells very well. They still sale out venues and while you don't here them in the main stream that much anymore. I wouldn't yet to classify them as Beatlesck but more like the Greatful Dead in terms of stability and longevity.

[Hephador]

I could be wrong, but the attention span of the general public seems to be too short these days for a band or artist to really establish themselves as someone to not only last but transcend generations.

[cordevax]

Originally posted by stonersmurf22
IMHO, THIS generation is not going to end up being remembered for any real changes in rock. Sure, there will be some rock bands which are still remembered and revered, but it will become increasingly hard for any rock to be considered "groundbreaking".
I completely agree with this, our generation's rock is simply a continuation of something that started in the 50s, 60s or 70s.

Originally posted by stonersmurf22
What WILL be remebered from this generation will be the emergence of rap music.
I also agree with this, if you include "in the USA" in that statement. In Europe, electronica is the music of our generation, not rap. Over here, for every club that plays rock, there's ten that serve electronica... and you'll hv trouble finding even one that is exclusively rap/r'n'b. Movies, TV, ads are completely flooded with electronica. Many, if not most, Top40 songs are in some way electronic...

As for some influential names:
- Massive Attack
- The Prodigy
- Tricky
- Goldie
- Roni Size
- <add: influential names in trance, house, hardcore...>