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

Interesting but in my view you are wrong if i can say so...When everyone from a generation is dead, what that generation has produced is only remembered by the next generations if the best exponent of the generation that is dead has produced something that far exceeds in terms of cultural impact their own generation...The majority of us will agree that the rock generation 1965-1979 has produced an incredibly lot of groups that were fantastic...but only a few are hugely remembered now that we are 40 or 50 years after...if you leave the rock circles, the general public remembers the stones or the beatles but not humble pie or blue oyster cult to put it in other words...so to be remembered in 2070, Ed Sheeran or Kelly Clarkson (never heard one of them) must have the same impact as the stones had in the sixties or must be cult figures that will be judged influential afterwards (like the velvet or nick drake to name just two that are remembered now and were neglected in their time)... I don't think they can be put in one of those two categories...

I think it's important not to forget that the general opinion has no memory...Do you think the people that go nowadays at the movie remembers Lana Turner or Ava Gardner...Bogey means perhaps something because he is an icon but I am not sure Robert Ryan or Sterling Hayden are hugely remembered today...It will be the same with the actual new artists in rock...Nobody will be remembered in 50 years except the icon's and I don't see musical icons à la BoB Marley in today's generation...

 

It took seven years for the beatles to go from Please please me to let it be so it's time for all these young artists to make master pieces after masterpieces in the next few years...

 

Amy Winehouse
Arctic Monkeys
The Black Keys
Bon Iver
Bonnie Prince Billy
The Strokes
Sigur Ros (from late 90's to present)

 

When I was 15 I couldn't wait for the next new album by one of my heroes. Today my son is 15. He's waiting for the next Xbox One game with the same passion and fever, but music? Nope. He listens to it, yes, even likes some of it more than the rest, but without the passion we had. So I don't have much hope for any musical icons in 2062.

 

I agree. Standing the test of time is not something that is directly related on a one to one level with overall popularity. There were music acts on the pop charts 50 years ago that do not have present import comparable to the acts you mention. That means merely listing popular acts of today will not provide a clear indication whether they are going to hold up over time.

The sixties acts that have at least some resonance today combined popularity with innovation. I am perhaps a poor judge of what acts today can make that claim, but I would think in order to hold up like that, the acts that do are more likely to than those that don't.

 

A band he was once in, but now solo he is.

 

Your point about the difference in today's consumer culture is what I agree makes for something of an apples and oranges comparison to the way we look at culture of 50 years ago. I don't know that this means the answer to the OP's question is none. But it is something that makes it more likely it will be that.

As for your last sentence, I don't know you are right, but for the most part I suspect you are.

 

Leave Beatles for Sale alone! Most bands would be lucky to release an album that good. At the risk of beating the Beatles drum to death, it is worth remembering exactly how much they accomplished in just eight years, going from catchy teen hits to major album statements, from rock 'n' roll rave ups to ambitious psychedelic excursions and beyond. Given that Adele and Sheeran are roughly around the age when the Beatles broke up, do they have comparable resumes?

 

Fifty years from now, what will Ed Sheeran be hugely remembered for exactly?

 

none.

zero.

rock music will be so passe that nobody doing anything now will be relevant.

 

That older fella who did that song with Kanye. I think Paul was his name? That guy is going places!

 

His inexplicable popularity, I'm guessing.

 

Every time I get one of those sampler discs focusing on the next wave of rockers...it's pretty grim. All of it sounds regurgitated, recycled and overly compressed.

 

I take your point, and this could go on ad infinitum (though for the record I'm really enjoying this discussion!), the key differences are that the way we acknowledge the pioneering work done in the 60s and 70s hasn't been replicated on the same grand scale to us, but in the future, who knows what'll be considered as fundamental to the form of popular music? Nu-rave might be a thing again, and suddenly Klaxons are the Bill Haley & The Comets?

Also, the amount of accessible information about an artist is endless- I can get hold of every song by Fleet Foxes in less than five minutes, read up on Wikipedia and some fan sites, and I then know as much as the guy who's listened to them for years. It's disposable, and it kills the mystery, but it also puts everything in plain sight. That will help sustain longevity.

Other music exists than rock. I feel that as the world shrinks, so will pigeonholing music by genre.

 

Surely, Coldplay will be remembered in, say 44 years, from yesterday?

 

Just a "what if" here . . . had Amy Winehouse not drank and drugged herself into an early grave, I really believe she would have been the biggest thing on the planet. Hell, in just the limited amount of time she gave herself, she turned popular music on its ear

That woman was a stone-cold musical genius and God only knows what she would have done with that seismic talent over a 30-40 year career.

What a waste.

 

None so far.

 

"But to say that nothing from this era will be "hugely remembered" would appear to be going against history."

I must have missed somebody saying the bolded statement above. I for one have no doubt there are newer artists of today who will be remember for many years to come. Who knows, maybe even centuries. Who hasn't heard of Beethoven!

And I suppose in a culture where vast numbers of people do not recognize names like Thomas Hardy, Piet Mondrian, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc, etc., you may well be correct. Please say it ain't so!

 

On a positive note, that record is what I'll take from this thread. Hadn't heard of it before but I've listened to it twice tonight and it's great, so thank you for that.

As far as what folk 50 years from now will be listening to from today, well it'll be whatever they can remember how to sing and play on the acoustic instruments yet to be used for fire wood afaic.

I'll get me sandwich board...

 

I lived the prime of my youth in the 2000s and I hope very little of it gets mentioned. Rock music here was so laughably bad in 2001 or so that I discovered Rammstein and fell in love with them and many neue deutsche härte bands. Music here was so bad I jumped continents.

 

I don't think that Adele or Ed Sheeran have anything close to the "resumes" that the Beatles have. But, it's not a sprint. People release music at a different pace these days, and thirteen studio albums will be a career (or close to it). I think it's impossible to say. Adele's first three albums have sold a lot more than the Beatles' first three albums ever did, but who knows if she'll keep it up. She could end up like Meat Loaf, largely forgotten, or she could end up like Pearl Jam, with a sharp decline in popularity, but with a respected body of work that lands her in the RR Hall of Fame. Or she might have a very different career.

 

Also, while their sales are through the roof, how many of Adele's or Sheeran's songs are really proving themselves (truly) durable? I think the primary reason The Beatles (and Elvis, Dylan, Stones, etc) will last for centuries will be their songs. Then the hardcore enthusiasts will dig into the albums. It's not unlike someone hearing signature passages from Beethoven's 5th or 9th symphonies and recognizing the melody, but being completely oblivious to about 90% of the remaining symphony.

 

I'd like to think that in 45 years people won't have the same obsession with the past as some (myself included) do now, in terms of music and culture in general. Nostalgia can be a stifling thing.

 

In my opinion, tracks like Someone Like You, Rolling in the Deep, and Hello will stand the test of time. Same with Sheeran's tracks The A-Team, and Thinking Out Loud.

That's purely based off the fact that they were not only immensely popular, but also used instrumentation and sounds that are not mainstream as some would put it. Therefore, their popularity is more pronounced and remembered.

 

I think songs like these might endure for a few decades, but beyond that I would have my doubts. It's not for lack of quality--it's that they came during a time when music just didn't have the same tenable grip. Meanwhile, there are scores of Beatles songs that don't just resonate because they're catchy but are used time and again to encapsulate the era in which they were recorded--that alone makes me think they'll last far (far, far, far) longer. Just my opinion of course.