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

Are you being serious????

 

Totally. How many people out of 100 do you think could name a single song of his, say one of his 41 number 1 records, that's not a Christmas carol? Maybe 1 on a good day? I'm not saying he's forgotten, I'm saying we forget the vast bulk of his popular output, which had nothing to do with carols.

 

Although they technically started in the late 90's, I think it's fair to count The White Stripes. They have been immortalized by "Seven Nation Army," which has taken it's place among the likes of "Smoke On the Water" and "Iron Man" as one of the great simple riff based songs. I'm sure their other music will stand the test of time as well, but if nothing else, they will be remembered for "Seven Nation Army."

 

Mika

 

I'm shocked that you're shocked.

 

Man, this is certainly a pretty damning indictment of post-2000 music! 4 pages and only a handful of, uh, musical acts have even been mentioned.

Pretty much proof of all the forgettable sounds currently being produced.

I think it speaks volumes about the music and culture and art of modern society.

Here today, forgotten tomorrow. Depressing if you aspire to create beautiful, lasting things of some musical value. Hard to even reach take-off speed in this ADD, couldn't-be-bothered environment.

 

FRANZ FERDINAND AND MAROON 5???

HELLO???

 

I'm hoping Andrew McMahon, Matthew Koma, Ed Sheeran, Keith Harkin. Maybe some Taylor Swift, Lady Ga Ga, and some Adelle.



But who knows. Did anyone think the Stones would be around in 2017, all those years ago?

 

Anyone that says "rock is dead" or "nobody will be remembered" probably doesn't know anything going in music in the last 15 years.
Listen to some new stuff once in a while.

St. Vincent
New Pornographers
Menomena
The Black Angels
Broken Social Scene
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club
Interpol
Explosions in the Sky
TV on the Radio
Deerhunter
Causa Sui
Kikagaku Moyo
Fuzz
Goat
Wooden Shjips / Moon Duo
Boris
My Morning Jacket (1999)

 

Aphex Twin released a double album called Drukqs in 2001.. this album will be regarded as a classic in a hundred years. Also, Autechre's post-2000 work will still be relevant in fifty years' time and beyond. These artists have no mainstream relevance, but their achievements are timeless, completely unique, and totally worthwhile. People will always be discovering and listening to high quality music that stands the test of time, regardless of how popular it is, currently.

 

I'm seeing a lot of interesting stuff here- some groups I know, some I want to check out. I'm still not convinced very many at all have the staying power, but they said that about Van Gogh so maybe we just expect too much too soon. Some, like Nick Drake, have become bigger after they are gone.

No doubt many groups/artists are not widely recognized not for lack of talent or what it takes musically but for several factors that are different today. Radio- a whole different ball game now. Managers. Who is the Danny Fields, Andrew Loog Oldham or Brian Epstein of today? Industry support-- so lacking. It eats up artists and spits them out like never before.

 

I'll be too old to rock n roll in 45 years time, but as is...still have a heartbeat today.

 

'Cash Me Outside' Remix Hits Hot 100 Thanks to Viral Dr. Phil Clip

 

It's kinda sad that the relatively obscure artists that have been and still are making good rock music will hardly be remembered in 45 years time.

 

Yes, I totally agree. It's really very sad. Sometimes I think that music has started a long journey through mediocrity. Let's think that today it would be incredible to be born a group like Pink Floyd......

 

it's an interesting question, but generally in my opinion, not many will have the longevity as the artists from the last 50 or so years.
although a couple come to mind, Taylor Swift.... yes i know! probably Adele too now with how things are going...
i'm struggling to think of many fella's though, dare i say Ed Sherran may be there.
i'll check this thread out when i'm 76

 

Let's not forget that pop music (broadly speaking) pays a high toll because it´s joined with the youth and every generation needs its own new music.

 

There are bands out there making spacey, avant-garde music like early Floyd (well Piper to Ummagumma) but they're playing to a different world. It's all been done to death, so how can a new band like that make any real impact. I suppose Radiohead are the big headliners in that domain (but I just find them duller than dull).
Anyway, there is so much fabulous music at our disposal now that I can't see the point of yearning for another PF, Zep, Beatles or whatever.

 

It's hard to say to some extent because people take so long in between records, but looking at their first four albums, I might place Arcade Fire, Adele and a couple of others ahead of the Beach Boys and the Beatles at this stage, maybe even ahead of the Stones and behind only Elvis (who did all of his iconic work early, although I had to cheat by excluding the Christmas album).

Elvis: Elvis Presley, Elvis, Loving You, Elvis' Golden Records

The Beach Boys: Surfin Safari, Surfin USA, Surfer Girl, Little Deuce Coupe

The Beatles: Please Please Me, With the Beatles, A Hard Days Night, Beatles for Sale

The Stones: The Rolling Stones, The Rolling Stones No. 2, Out of Our Heads, Aftermath

 

In contrast to those who say 'None', I'd tend more towards 'all of them'.
Although it's ceased to be a talking point, you're probably familiar with the idea of 'The Long Tail' which arose when an earlier idea of 'proliferating margins' met der interwebs.
Put simply, there's no 'mainstream' anymore in which common memories are held by virtue of everyone being aware of the same TV and radio stations, record labels, booksellers.
The newspapers, for their own interests or because of their own inadequacies of awareness, tend toward covering what remains of that 'prime time' cultural consciousness..shows like X Factor (remember Pop Idol? No...neither does an 8 year old I know who likes X Factor)...advertising shows.
The stars and celebrities that come through this portal are disposable and unmemorable, despite huge exposure and 'success'. That's because they're fitting into slots prepared for them by the shows and the shows will prepare others and overexpose those disposably too.

What will persist beyond all of this is what used to be called 'subcultures' (and the fans of every artist qualify as subcultures).
This forum is an example of an persisting subculture, one where people are attentive to more than the initial impact and publicity of record releases and artists and have an overarching interest in 'best quality' and 'ranking' among others.
Taking just this forum as example, the reason why 'all of them' will persist 45 years from now is because there's so many ways for reputations made to be maintained (through discussion and reissue, itself sometimes because of discussion), revived, reassessed, remastered....in short 'remembered'.
There's also ways for 'failures' not to be forgotten and for processes of reassessment to make their future impact outdo their initial.

But more than all of this, nostalgia and repurposing are not going to be forgotten. For decades now, these have been driving markets. So, someone somewhere is going to place bets that they can take 'the forgotten' and make it pay.

Nothing will be forgotten. Everything will be remembered.
Except those things that people, at least temporarily, agree to forget.
Justin Bieber, I'm (not) looking at you.

 

hugely remembered?

You'd think being remembered at all 45 years from now would be enough.

 

I asked my same OP question here on another forum and one response was to suggest "defining what criteria we think go into being still remembered and considered an epic". That person's suggestions included that the band or musician be "innovative, compelling, and it's having a broader impact on popular culture", that "artists today are STILL citing them as influences", that we be able to point to the "trail of their influence" and that "there is still no disagreement about their impact and value."

Another person suggested that is asked, at least 75% of people would say they had at least heard of that musician or band.

I wish I had used these parameters from the get go.

Using those parameters, the field is narrowed- yes/no?

 

Loads of great artists will be remembered, though some of those on this thread (The Libertines, for example) seem to be a bit of a reach. Offering it in language that old people might understand, here's how I anticipate some current artists and their statuses in a few decades' time compared to the legacy and status of some classic bands now:

Adele = Dusty Springfield
Ryan Adams = Johnny Cash
Kamasi Washington = Herbie Hancock
Jack White = Eric Clapton
Ed Sheeran = James Taylor
Coldplay = Cliff Richard & The Shadows
Amy Winehouse = Buddy Holly
Bat For Lashes = Joni Mitchell
Arcade Fire = The Band
Tyler, The Creator = Neil Young
Run The Jewels = The Who
Caribou = The Grateful Dead
Janelle Monáe = Stevie Wonder
Thundercat = Dr. John
The Strokes = The Hollies
QOTSA = The Rolling Stones
Childish Gambino = Roxy Music
Dirty Projectors = The Byrds
(Deradoorian = Gene Clark)
Chromatics = The Cars
Bon Iver = Paul Simon
New PoronogrAphers = ELO
Gorillaz = The Kinks

The comparison above are for the people in this thread who think music stopped in 1978 because they clearly don't like any music made after that time.

 

Come on. I like several of the artists you mention here, but do you really think that Bat For Lashes will enjoy the same kind of legendary stature as Joni Mitchell four decades from now? Do you think that a respectably successful niche act like Caribou is comparable in terms of cultural impact to the Grateful Dead? I saw someone mention Causa Sui a few posts back, who again I genuinely like, but does anyone outside of a narrow band of followers even know who they are today, much less 45 years from now? Obviously, when you're talking about people like Adele and Sheeran, they're at a totally different level of popularity and I expect that their fans will remember them. My question with them would be, will they continue to attract new generations of fans years down the line like the greatest acts of the 60s and 70s have? We shall see.

From where I'm sitting there are still good acts out there, but they have to work a lot harder to carve out a niche for themselves and the best of them don't really make the same kind of broad popular impact that strong bands of the past did. The fragmentation of the music audience has made it harder for anyone to emerge from the pack. The artists that do achieve massive mainstream success today tend to be more like anodyne lowest common denominator fare, in my view.

 

Well, I'm painting broad strokes on a narrow canvas thanks to having to omit anyone from the late 90s - the gist of what I was trying to impart is that we remember all of those artists who were very early in their careers 45 years ago, but had already produced a strong body of work, so it shouldn't be any different for those who have some popularity in their career now and might still be influential in 45 years' time - everyone I mention above has sold hundreds of thousands of albums at least (except maybe Deradoorian on her own), - millions for some - and many pioneered new musical forms, so they won't be immediately forgotten.

Admittedly, there's some casual direct comparisons (I used Caribou as the GD based on their live reputation and double drumming - seriously they're one of the greatest live bands I've ever seen), but just as we're not limited to just five or six artists to represent the music of 1972.