What bands/artists started from 2000 on do you believe will be hugely remembered 45 years from now?

Really? There are not many artists in history that 75% of people have heard of, let alone in 50 years time. Not everyone is into music, and many are very select. Society is not a reflection of this forum. This is a sub genre of a sub genre. If you went out in the street now and asked 100 random people who Brian Wilson, Jimmy Page or Roger Walters was you'd be lucky to get 10% of people knowing. You need to put things into perspective. Like I work with someone who had no idea who Yoda was.

 

I just asked my team (11 people - ages 21-36 ) who Jimi hendrix. Only 1 knew. Another person knew he was famous. Sums up how little people know about 'old' music.

 

Yes. I think our age group (35+ I know there are younger members on the board, but still) over estimate the classic status of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc. when it comes to the younger generation. Last year Paul McCartney played in my town and the local newspaper did some video interviews with young people, asking if they knew who he was and showing them a picture with the name. A lot of them had no clue. The Beatles sounded vaguely familiar to some of them. One such case was a girl. When she was asked if she was surprised that he would perform in front of 25000 in town. She said:

"Nah. I'm shure there's a lot of you older people going". Ouch!

 

I don't recognize, much less remember, any artists from the last 20 years right now...

 

Young people want current/relevant music. No matter how "great" classic (Beatles, Zeppelin, Stones) music is, they want what is "happening", that is more important.
Also, the classic stuff is associated with the "old" generations, so that's probably not a desired aspect either.

 

Its a mistake to say though that someones knowledge of music aged say 15 is going to be carried forward, the same person aged 30 is more likely to have developed a considerably larger knowledge of music.

I do think one issue your dealing with is simply the place of musicians in a larger culture, I would argue for example that sportspeople today have grown in culture importance at the expense of musicians. Those muscians that do get a lot of media attension tend to be more lightweight and the attension is more celeb gossip that obviously isn't going have much staying power in the cultural memory.

 

I think asking this question is depending very much on the age demographic. If for instance you go to the RYM forums, inhabited mainly by 15-35 year-olds, and look at the threads where people are posting their favorite all-time top 10 albums, the odd Dylan, Beatles, Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd or Can is mentioned, together with some jazz (Coltrane, Mingus). But those lists for the larger part are made up by picks from the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.

 

Adele

 

Sorry, I left my crystal ball at home, but - the biggest bands/artists of the said period, I guess? Time will tell exactly who gets the honor but don't worry - many will be remembered just fine.

 

But we're talking about broad popular impact here and I'm afraid that Caribou isn't even remotely near the same level as the Grateful Dead, who had hordes of devoted fans. I'm sure that there are fans who remember moderately successful bands like Spooky Tooth and Cactus from the 70s too, but it's not as if they loom large over the landscape. I'm not even sure what "new musical forms" Caribou pioneered, since Snaith's thing seems to be more about fusing pre-existing genres together. Bat for Lashes' Natasha Kahn is now 35 and she's released four fairly successful indie albums in a Kate Bush/Tori Amos kind of vein. Does that really match up to what Joni Mitchell had accomplished by that point in her career?

Have all of these acts really moved "hundreds of thousands of albums at least"? Obviously, Coldplay and Adele have, but it's hard to get a clear sales read on some of the more obscure names that you've mentioned here. I think someone like Janelle Monae is genuinely talented and creative, but the truth is, she hasn't really set the charts on fire with massive commercial success, sadly. Compare this with a figure like Prince, who managed to combine big time popular success with serious artistic credibility. It's hard to think of many comparable artists today--Radiohead comes to mind, but they've been around for a few decades by this point too. I'm not someone who views mass popularity as the ultimate yardstick of artistic success, so maybe it doesn't really matter, but what was special about "the golden age" of pop/rock was that truly outstanding acts could break through in a major way, whereas today they have to make due with a more moderate level of success.

 

Good point. I'm not even sure who Roger Walters is.

 

probably about right -I'd add in Lady Gaga and Lana del Rey and maybe pull Daft Punk off the list as, ya know, they started a LONG time before 2000 - otherwise you gotta add Snoop, etc.

 

There will be clones of The Stones! And clones of Paul! And even Ringo will have a clone and a Thomas Tank engine clone!

 

None.

 

How very original.

 

It's my best guess as to the answer to the OP question...sorry it's not flashy enough for you. Thanks for that gem of a post though.

 

I dont think the world is the way it used to be. Things are so difuse right now that I dont think there are going to be classics in the sense we conceive right now.

But if I had to say one name I would put Adele as a protagonist.

 

Put It this way- would anyone 45 years ago think that, I dunno, Neil Young would be still touring today? He's built a legacy, and has had 35 years to do that, with scant releases that touched the same level of megastardom he saw after '75. Same applies to anyone I listed, I reckon- they'll build that legacy over time.

The kids of today are living in a golden age of music as far as they're concerned, and it is exciting to them. It's all one big blender and they appreciate the past, but will need their own equivalent of the legends that currently serve the same status as the McCartneys or Neil Youngs or Chicagos that are touring at varying levels of amphitheatres right now. They won't be there in 45 years' time.

Sorry music stopped for you in 1975.

 

You are overlooking and underestimating the changes in the music industry. Music is now a commodity in people's lives that tends to expire quicker than fruit from the grocery store. This is not a reflection on the quality of musicians or the music, this is a reflection on the way in which music is digested by this generation.

The album is dying ... and in many instances dead. People download songs... it doesn't pay to invest in making albums anymore. And there is so much easy (and let's face it.. free) access to music that there is literally almost no investment from the consumer either. You don't save up to buy the new album. You don't wait for it. There is no 'digging' into music for most people anymore... it's a question of grab (or stream), listen, shuffle, delete and make space for newer music.

Small/mid-size music venues are also dying at a comparable rate to music stores. The youth today just don't care as much to go out and spend their time with a band... it's available at their fingertips or it's not.

In short, no "slagging of modern music"... but the world has changed. You might not think so living on this forum, but it has.

 

An obvious answer is Kelly Clarkson. One of the few "modern" pop stars recording strong melodic material with that amazing voice; and obviously, the evil "American Idol" having a major effect on pop culture/music business. If she wasn't a major talent, that show would NOT have taken off, along with all the clones that followed in its wake.

 

Well at the Grammys last year, Courtney Barnett replied "Hendrix is the only one" when asked what musical artist she would want a tattoo of. I think young people who are into music know who he is. In fact, I think that kids today know much more about music from 40 years ago than we did when we were kids. More importantly, I think that they are much more willing to listen. It's most noticeable to me at rock festivals.

 

Lotta great music now, but . . .I'm not sure where the real icons are.

Well, there's a couple. I think Taylor Swift and Adele are gonna re-write the music history books when they're done. Those really are the only 2 artists now who make the music world stop what's it's doing when they release an album. Maybe Beyonce and Gaga, but they're as much about performance art than - in the immortal words of Eddie Wilson - "words and music".

 

But so true...Are you really believing that someone from this generation will be HUGELY remembered in 50 years from now ? A little bit like Elvis Presley or the Beatles or Bob Dylan are remembered now from 50 years ago ? I suppose you are joking...Music is a niche market now, that has no cultural impact anymore...If a Hank Williams is totally forgotten now in the general public, how would you that someone like Adele or Radiohead would be talked about in 2067 ?

 

I think you really get to the heart of the matter here. The whole way that we consume music today is vastly different and whether we like it or not, it has literally devalued music. This isn't to say that young people don't still love music, but it has to compete with a lot of other interests now that weren't even around back in the day. Music was at the very root of youth culture then, whereas it seems to be more in the background today.