What current music talent will be considered influential

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

Ban him Kewpie, please.

by the way, I believe Albarn to be quite talented as well
and I really, it is highly unlikely that most people in the world really know what is going to be considered influential in 20 years
Crystal Castles for sure, you just dont all know them
I have come to consider most of the musical tastes of many fellow Mozzers to be narrow in the extreme
some of you must realize that about yourself, right?
thats why I most picked ones that are out of the "accepted Moz like range"
you all consider influential
we'll check back in 20 years
Hikki will still be around and some of those others, I will do my best to remember your narrow minded judgments

 

[King Leer]

I consider these issues a lot, more in terms of cinema and art. Naturally all the chaff will fall away in future decades and we'll look back and see what really deserves to be remembered.

We can't see it now because we're in it. A few years back there was some quote about how hundreds of years from now the time gap between The Beatles and jungle will be just a blip (make of jungle what you will).

In a way, the short-lived hype that surrounds many bands/artists these days makes it harder to predict what will last/be influential in the future. Noel Gallagher said a band can't be truly great for more than 5 years, and he's pretty much right.

Sadly, influence has become synonymous with capitalizing on trends, I think. Not enough innovators.

i never got the fuss about YYYs, but i get what you mean. and the crud that followed The Strokes was abominable. Jet? gag!

a good band will filter it's influences through their own personality/style.



there's a difference between being inspired and capitalizing on a trend. i still maintain that an influential band/artist will only really recognized as such a few years down the road.

 

[konstantinl]

I think the idea of being musically influential is outdated.

We already have all the influences, almost every sound and style has already been used and is out there. I've been reviewing albums all year and almost everything was mimicking not just the past but specific artists from the past. The only band I've heard this year that really put their own stamp on their music was Spoon and even then it is in a recognizable style.

More than being remembered for being musically influential current day groups will be remembered, if they are remembered at all, for breathing new life into old styles rather than creating new ones.

However that is a bit like asking someone to 'write a Elizabethan play that's better than Shakespeare' - that is a very difficult thing to do and few are capable of it.

Most of it will go into the giant trash bin of 21st century disposable culture.

 

[Worm]

Crystal Castles for sure, you just dont all know them

The irony of including Crystal Castles on the list of influential artists is that Ethan has been accused of plagiarism. (Which, as these things go, might make CC more appropriate for the list.) They're a good choice though.

Also, I got a chuckle out of CombiChrist. Isn't including them on the list another way of saying people will just realize, at last, how good Front 242/Nitzer Ebb were?

 

[Worm]

We can't see it now because we're in it.

In a way, the short-lived hype that surrounds many bands/artists these days makes it harder to predict what will last/be influential in the future.

What did you think of konstantinl's post?

Yes, we're in it, but does that mean we can't see which way the wind's blowing?

 

[Qvist]

The Killers would be a part of my 2nd 5:

Killers
Apoptygma Berzerk
Regina Spektor
Emily Haines(Metric)
&
Perfume(the Japanese band, not the other one)

I'd say both the Killers and APB (who I like very much) lack the essential prerequisite for becoming an influential band - some sort of originality, or at least a new fusion of familiar elements.

cheers

 

[Dave2006]

It's not my cup of tea; but surely artists like Dizzee Rascal and Jay-Z will be considered influential in years to come, the same way that Run DMC, Public Emeny, Ice T, NWA are seen as founders of Hip Hop.

Dave

 

[Worm]

I'd say both the Killers and APB (who I like very much) lack the essential prerequisite for becoming an influential band - some sort of originality, or at least a new fusion of familiar elements.

cheers

You're probably right about The Killers and APB, but I think the truth is that the originality of any one band is a moot point. What will happen is that somebody will come along who will appropriate all the artists on Robby's list-- in fact, maybe all the artists mentioned in the entire thread-- and create something 'new'. Whether this prospect is a dream or a nightmare, I don't know. As a chlid I loved milk and orange juice, but one afternoon when I put them together into one super-potion I was somewhat chagrined by the result.

 

[Qvist]

Like oil paint mixed on a palette - once you've tried mixing too many, what you're left with is a nondescript gray that won't change no matter how many more colors you try to blend into it.

cheers

 

[Uncleskinny]

I'm an older, wiser, and more miserable bastard. When the young 'uns in the lab at work put Galaxy on the radio, I'm lost. What occurs to me though, on putting up with the aural assault, is that when the ultimate book of music comes to be written, barely anything that Galaxy play will be in it.

Peter

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

I think the idea of being musically influential is outdated.

thats actually really the first thing I thought of when I read the thread title, then "Alice Practice" came on my itunes & I thought, well, I can still give these many people here who think in a non post post modern way about music something to chew, thus "my list" was born
&
Skinny is right(in his own way) I think if we go really far into the future
only Mozart remains

 

[Worm]

You mean Moz art.

Try orange juice with two spoons of coffee.

It would take a hundred Spoons to match one Orange Juice.

 

[Brisbane]

I find that there are few, if any acts around today who are able to make the changes needed to be in the league of Bowie, Elvis and The Beatles.

Times are differant. The industry is marketed to 12 year olds more than ever before and the internet has changed culture for the long haul.

 

[fuckfrankie]

I find that there are few, if any acts around today who are able to make the changes needed to be in the league of Bowie, Elvis and The Beatles.

Times are differant. The industry is marketed to 12 year olds more than ever before and the internet has changed culture for the long haul.

it hasn't changed. how many adults do you see screaming and fainting in the old "Beatlemania" newsreels? i thought it was pretty common knowledge that The Beatles stopped playing live because the little kids wouldn't stop screaming the whole time

before the internet, radio changed culture. before radio, wax phonograph cylinders.

there's the old "judge of character" question, Elvis or The Beatles? and it's usually an easy answer, but i'm pretty sure if i had lived through those times i wouldn't have liked either. too mainstream, too hyped, aimed at the kiddy market. sorta like Lady GaGa of the 60s.

 

[Brisbane]

it hasn't changed. how many adults do you see screaming and fainting in the old "Beatlemania" newsreels? i thought it was pretty common knowledge that The Beatles stopped playing live because the little kids wouldn't stop screaming the whole time

before the internet, radio changed culture. before radio, wax phonograph cylinders.

there's the old "judge of character" question, Elvis or The Beatles? and it's usually an easy answer, but i'm pretty sure if i had lived through those times i wouldn't have liked either. too mainstream, too hyped, aimed at the kiddy market. sorta like Lady GaGa of the 60s.

I think the big differance is Elvis and The Beatles both went on to bigger and better things.

Lady Gaga has one album out. I promise you in 5 years or less everyone will be bored with her one trick pony style.

 

[Happy Maudlin]

You mean Moz art.

That's what I thought he meant.Show's my thought process.

 

[nugz]

there's the old "judge of character" question, Elvis or The Beatles? and it's usually an easy answer, but i'm pretty sure if i had lived through those times i wouldn't have liked either. too mainstream, too hyped, aimed at the kiddy market. sorta like Lady GaGa of the 60s.

what do you think you wouldve liked back then? there really wasnt much of an "indie scene" in those days....

back then, especially in the 50s, rock n roll was new, and in the 60s the beatles were producing all these new sounds and doing things no one had ever done before. i really dont think someone (under 30 anyway) wouldve been like "ew this is for 10 year olds, im gonna go listen to Bach now."

 

[nugz]

I think the big differance is Elvis and The Beatles both went on to bigger and better things.

Lady Gaga has one album out. I promise you in 5 years or less everyone will be bored with her one trick pony style.

two

 

[fuckfrankie]

I think the big differance is Elvis and The Beatles both went on to bigger and better things.

but that's my point. The Beatles are considered gods now, but when they first broke they were a glorified cover band who made safe, radio friendly music. it's hard to tell who will go on to better things. i don't think even The Beatles knew they had it in them.

what do you think you wouldve liked back then? there really wasnt much of an "indie scene" in those days....

Johnny Cash probably, but it's hard to say since i didn't live then. there was most certainly an "indie scene." they were the musicians The Beatles and Elvis were ripping off

 

[nugz]

Johnny Cash probably, but it's hard to say since i didn't live then. there was most certainly an "indie scene." they were the musicians The Beatles and Elvis were ripping off

who did the beatles rip off?