The most important musicians of this era (2000-present)

[MOWJO8185]

I will say that this thread inspired me to listen to Nickel Creek for the first time ever, and after getting through 3 of their albums (self-titled, the side, Why should the fire die), while I think the music is great, I wouldn't say it is blowing me away as something that changed the direction of music forever. Although, to be fair, that could be because I already have a pretty built-in history of listening to some artists like Avett Brothers, Civil Wars, and Trampled by Turtles, all of whom I suppose Nickel Creek could have influenced and I wouldn't know because I'm just listening to them for the first time now.

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by Sniper15

Can anyone name any artist from the 70s or 80s, that was as popular as Nickel Creek, that is now considered a legend? Popularity might not always equate to quality but most artists that are remembered as legends achieve a great degree of commercial success during their career. There are always exceptions to the rule but in order to be remembered years down the line you have to really be an artist with a ton of name recognition with the general public. Nickel Creek and Conor Oberst are talented but they won't be looked at as important musicians who defined an era in music by historians since they never were able to galvanize a large audience

Well, legendary and important can be two VERY different things. But, I mean, to throw some names out for argument sake, that are a step(s) below your Zeppelins and Floyds, you've got guys like Warren Zevon and Tom Waits who are certainly well known, but again, ask 1000 people on the street I think we'd be surprised how unknown they are. And one could argue they are legendary in a sense. Zevon for example is respected by so many musicians. So when we talk about influence, do we mean cultural influence or influence on music?

Originally Posted by MOWJO8185

I will say that this thread inspired me to listen to Nickel Creek for the first time ever, and after getting through 3 of their albums (self-titled, the side, Why should the fire die), while I think the music is great, I wouldn't say it is blowing me away as something that changed the direction of music forever. Although, to be fair, that could be because I already have a pretty built-in history of listening to some artists like Avett Brothers, Civil Wars, and Trampled by Turtles, all of whom I suppose Nickel Creek could have influenced and I wouldn't know because I'm just listening to them for the first time now.

Start on the Punch Brothers now. Well, do Thile's solo record "How to Grow a Woman…." first, then Punch Bros, then the Goat Rodeo Sessions. Then go see him live and jizz in your pants.

[Speilmen230]

How many records did Jimmy Hendrix move before he died? Would be interesting to see if he was a big time record seller for the time he was around.

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by Sniper15

Can anyone name any artist from the 70s or 80s, that was as popular as Nickel Creek, that is now considered a legend? Popularity might not always equate to quality but most artists that are remembered as legends achieve a great degree of commercial success during their career. There are always exceptions to the rule but in order to be remembered years down the line you have to really be an artist with a ton of name recognition with the general public. Nickel Creek and Conor Oberst are talented but they won't be looked at as important musicians who defined an era in music by historians since they never were able to galvanize a large audience

once again, the point was about Thile himself, not nickel creek.

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

Well, legendary and important can be two VERY different things. But, I mean, to throw some names out for argument sake, that are a step(s) below your Zeppelins and Floyds, you've got guys like Warren Zevon and Tom Waits who are certainly well known, but again, ask 1000 people on the street I think we'd be surprised how unknown they are. And one could argue they are legendary in a sense. Zevon for example is respected by so many musicians. So when we talk about influence, do we mean cultural influence or influence on music?

That's a great point. Popularity is being so overstated as the singular factor as to who will be remembered as important, I don't understand why people are having such a hard time grasping that there are plenty of musicians from past era that are now considered important that were never all that popular then or now. Doesn't change how important they were.

Like if you sell a few hundred thousand records and the critics and musicians of the past and present rave about your records and contributions to music and culture, you are an important artist. For some reason people in this thread seem to think if you're just a gold selling artist, not a multi platinum artist, you're not popular.

No one I have mentioned is some underground artists selling their cd's out of the trunk of their car at 1k capacity bar shows. Every single one of them is grammy nominated/awarded and at least gold level sales wise. Why people are thinking as if that level of popularity isn't enough to affect music as a whole is mind boggling to me.

[whygohome?]

Only message board posts and Facebook likes, not record sales or touring figures, are how some people calculate popularity. the more you know

I've never 'liked' an artist i enjoy on Facebook in my life

[zajDmB1]

Yea, I mean, I think to have the least messy debate you can sort of put them into tiers.

Who will we hear about all the time; like Zeppelin, Stones, Beatles, Floyd, etc

Who will we hear often from a few hits, but not nearly as ubiquitously; like Talking Heads, the Clash, Van Morrison, etc

Who are well-known/respected in music circles, not as much in general culture; your Zevon, Laura Nyro, etc

There's all sorts of ways you can debate those tiers, maybe even who I put in, but I think the general idea makes sense.

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

Yea, I mean, I think to have the least messy debate you can sort of put them into tiers.

Who will we hear about all the time; like Zeppelin, Stones, Beatles, Floyd, etc

Who will we hear often from a few hits, but not nearly as ubiquitously; like Talking Heads, the Clash, Van Morrison, etc

Who are well-known/respected in music circles, not as much in general culture; your Zevon, Laura Nyro, etc

There's all sorts of ways you can debate those tiers, maybe even who I put in, but I think the general idea makes sense.

Yeah for sure I think that's a good way to look at it. Tiers have to be used because of the factors like popularity and critical acclaim that will vary how many people an artist has influenced, while still giving them their due credit as important and influential.

Certainly an idea I like better than: "nope, I've never heard of them and they don't have a huge Facebook following, they aren't important and no one will remember them".

[cruscott35]

Originally Posted by whygohome?

That's a great point. Popularity is being so overstated as the singular factor as to who will be remembered as important, I don't understand why people are having such a hard time grasping that there are plenty of musicians from past era that are now considered important that were never all that popular then or now. Doesn't change how important they were.

Like if you sell a few hundred thousand records and the critics and musicians of the past and present rave about your records and contributions to music and culture, you are an important artist. For some reason people in this thread seem to think if you're just a gold selling artist, not a multi platinum artist, you're not popular.

No one I have mentioned is some underground artists selling their cd's out of the trunk of their car at 1k capacity bar shows. Every single one of them is grammy nominated/awarded and at least gold level sales wise. Why people are thinking as if that level of popularity isn't enough to affect music as a whole is mind boggling to me.

Who??????????

[cruscott35]

Originally Posted by whygohome?

Only message board posts and Facebook likes, not record sales or touring figures, are how some people calculate popularity. the more you know

I've never 'liked' an artist i enjoy on Facebook in my life

Point me to their past tour dates please, and I'll dispel that myth too.

To act like FB likes aren't a relatively good gauge of general popularity is dumb. Just because you don't like shit on FB, doesn't mean other people won't. And just because you and your buddies really like Nickel Creek, doesn't mean other people do.

They may be the most popular band of all time within people who play bluegrass between the ages of 24-45, and are primarily lefthanded subculture, but if you've got to narrow it down to such a small subgroup within a subgroup to prove your point, you've basically lost.

[whygohome?]

Ok since you won't read I'll respond one more time and repeat what we've already written:

Warren zevon
Tom Waits
Frank Zappa
Bela fleck & the flecktones
Return to forever
Nick drake
Jeff Buckley
Leonard Cohen

Just for starters. I can't emphasize this next part enough: I don't care if you don't think those artists are important and influential. They are and not just because I say so, so some reading of listening or whatever you have to do to grasp music history beyond the top 40 if you want to understand my point about then because clearly I'm not going to be able to get through to you and I'm not derailing my own thread trying to anymore.

[Climb2safety]

Who that has been around the past 10 years will be playing at half-time during the super bowl in 2040?

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by cruscott35

Point me to their past tour dates please, and I'll dispel that myth too.

To act like FB likes aren't a relatively good gauge of general popularity is dumb. Just because you don't like shit on FB, doesn't mean other people won't. And just because you and your buddies really like Nickel Creek, doesn't mean other people do.

They may be the most popular band of all time within people who play bluegrass between the ages of 24-45, and are primarily lefthanded subculture, but if you've got to narrow it down to such a small subgroup within a subgroup to prove your point, you've basically lost.

You're right. Nickel creek hasn't sold over a million records and no one listens to them because you dont. Moving on. I am done talking about it, nickel creek was never my point anyway it was chris thile and his ability to play pop and experimental stuff but whatever.

[whygohome?]

I forgot that people who like bluegrass music do not count as a large enough culture to mean anything to the average person. So earl Scruggs and bill Monroe aren't important musicans at all, they barely have any Facebook likes DEERRRRP

[cruscott35]

Originally Posted by whygohome?

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and to me there are a handful of musicians that stand out above everyone else that have played a huge part in defining the sound of music in the last 14 years or so. The "musical geniuses" of my generation that also appeal to millions. Pop and rap have dominated sales and listening statistics for most of this era but just like the 90's, 80's, 70's and 60's, it's the Beatles, Zeppelins, Paul Simons, Stevie ray Vaughns, Pearl jams, nirvanas, and Dave Matthews bands of the eras that are remembered long after the chart topping record sales dominating acts like the monkees, bee gees, Duran Durans, hansons and spice girls are forgotten about.

I feel like there are a handful of artists that will be remembered as the visionaries and geniuses of this era, shaping the style of music and being revered 50 years from now and still popular with people of all ages. I'll share my list and would love some additions and/or discussions about why you agree or disagree with my decisions. I'll go into more detail about any of my choices if anyone would like to know more.

Radiohead
Chris Thile (nickel creek, punch brothers)
Sufjan Stevens
Daft Punk
Fiona Apple
Arcade Fire

Those artists stand head and shoulders artistically in my mind above almost anyone else. They push the boundaries of their genre, spawning lots of other stylistically similar acts while also appealing to millions of die hard fans in their own right.

There aren't any wrong answers and my criteria is obviously loosely defined. For the record I tried to be a little bit objective as I'm not a huge fan of daft punk or arcade fire but I absolutely appreciate how revolutionary they have been in their respective genres and believe they will all be remembered for a long time to come as hugely influential and important artists. What say you?

Originally Posted by whygohome?

Ok since you won't read I'll respond one more time and repeat what we've already written:

Warren zevon
Tom Waits
Frank Zappa
Bela fleck & the flecktones
Return to forever
Nick drake
Jeff Buckley
Leonard Cohen

Just for starters. I can't emphasize this next part enough: I don't care if you don't think those artists are important and influential. They are and not just because I say so, so some reading of listening or whatever you have to do to grasp music history beyond the top 40 if you want to understand my point about then because clearly I'm not going to be able to get through to you and I'm not derailing my own thread trying to anymore.

Read your initial post, and read your latest reply here. No one that list will be remembered like any of the artists you initially mentioned, mainly because they aren't known in the day they played in, let alone 50 fucking years from now. 50 years from now, no one will know who the Flecktones are. 50 years from now, people will still be able to sing along to 80% of Beatles songs.

[whygohome?]

I'd love it if people had any more artists to throw in the mix for discussion! I've made my points over and over and I really didnt want this thread to be about my list but was interested to hear from others.

[sheldonlevene]

I can't express how little I care for Kanye West.

[MOWJO8185]

I know they aren't very popular, but TV on the Radio I feel like has been influential on a lot of what's popular right now. Were one of the first to merge art-rock, electronic, and hip-hop elements into a pop package. I don't know that they are really cited as an influence on anyone, but I think they've made a few albums unlike anything I've ever heard.

If we have to use somewhat well known as a qualifier, then I think one of the lists on page 1 pretty much summed it up.

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by MOWJO8185

I know they aren't very popular, but TV on the Radio I feel like has been influential on a lot of what's popular right now. Were one of the first to merge art-rock, electronic, and hip-hop elements into a pop package. I don't know that they are really cited as an influence on anyone, but I think they've made a few albums unlike anything I've ever heard.

If we have to use somewhat well known as a qualifier, then I think one of the lists on page 1 pretty much summed it up.

check their Facebook likes and get back to us

I don't think anyone's list has summed it up quite yet because there are different levels of influence, popularity and success that an artist can be at and still be important.

[LadyMadonna68]

i dont even know how any list is going to properly gauge importance/influence. i mean, i've seriously never heard of nickle creek or chris thile until this thread, but for all i know they may have made huge waves in whatever scene they're in.

[MOWJO8185]

I think the other hard thing about this is that we live in this era so we often remember a given act's most recent, sub-par effort, and because of that it's hard to put into context how that band will remembered once all is said and done. I think 5-10 years ago, people would think that My Morning Jacket and Wilco were at the forefront of an indie music revolution and releasing albums unlike what anyone had heard. I have seen both Z and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot described as America's response to Kid A. Both those artists have since released multiple albums that were sub-par, and I feel like that tempers my praises of them in the moment, but they were certainly once on that trajectory, and I think the jury is still out on how they will be remembered by the time they hang it up.

[cruscott35]

Originally Posted by whygohome?

check their Facebook likes and get back to us

I don't think anyone's list has summed it up quite yet because there are different levels of influence, popularity and success that an artist can be at and still be important.

More than 2x Nickel Creek and almost 7x Chris Thile as a solo artist.

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by MOWJO8185

I think the other hard thing about this is that we live in this era so we often remember a given act's most recent, sub-par effort, and because of that it's hard to put into context how that band will remembered once all is said and done. I think 5-10 years ago, people would think that My Morning Jacket and Wilco were at the forefront of an indie music revolution and releasing albums unlike what anyone had heard. I have seen both Z and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot described as America's response to Kid A. Both those artists have since released multiple albums that were sub-par, and I feel like that tempers my praises of them in the moment, but they were certainly once on that trajectory, and I think the jury is still out on how they will be remembered by the time they hang it up.

Great point. MMJ's last 2 albums have really been disappointing to me after their first few were amazing. Wilco has so much amazing stuff I think they're tremendously important regardless of a few mediocre albums. Wilco and Neutral Milk Hotel are the godfathers of indie rock as we know it along with maybe Bright Eyes. Incredible stuff from all 3 from 2000-2005.

[neumdogg]

Why were people including John Mayer in their lists? What makes him important?

[Sniper15]

Conversations like this will always be extremely difficult because "important" is such a nebulous concept. You have your first tier legends that no on will debate (Beatles, Zeppelin, Nirvana, Dylan, etc) but once you move past this top tier of artists it's extremely difficult to gauge influence and importance. For example, The Velvet Underground is cited by critics and some prominent artists as one of the most influential groups of the 60s but most people have no idea who the fuck they are; should their influence be judged based on how critics view them or the general public?

[LadyMadonna68]

what makes anyone important

[AlexK79]

There's a middle ground to the whole 'popularity' argument. I don't think that an artist necessarily has to be an uber-selling, mutli-platinum monster to be considered important. But they DO need to at least have some name recognition.

I look at a couple of Zaj's examples like The Clash or Talking Heads. Are they *as* recognizable as The Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd, etc? No. But your average rock fan has definitely at least heard of those acts and would probably be familiar with the radio hits that they had at the very least, while the hard core folks and critics can absolutely recognize the impact that they've had.

I'll throw a more modern day name out there that I think will be considered quite important in the future - Green Day. I'll probably get destroyed for this because they're pretty hated on this board, but again I don't think personal preference should have anything to do with being able to recognize an artist's importance. Those guys completely spearheaded the pop-punk movement in the mid-90's. They made punk music mainstream and accessible. That may not be considered a good thing by some people, but it's undeniable. Without Dookie, there's no breakout for other bands like Rancid and The Offspring, there's no Blink 182, no Fall Out Boy, etc... a decade or so later. After a decade of being a multi-platinum punk act they took a left turn with American Idiot, which again, regardless of your personal opinion on it was a HUGELY impactful record. A band known for writing super-catchy, snotty 2 1/2 minute pop punk tunes decides to write a rock opera/concept record about the American political machine and it becomes a massive, worldwide smash and they're playing stadiums. They've been consistently popular and impactful for 20 years now, kinda hard to believe.

[cruscott35]

Originally Posted by Sniper15

Conversations like this will always be extremely difficult because "important" is such a nebulous concept. You have your first tier legends that no on will debate (Beatles, Zeppelin, Nirvana, Dylan, etc) but once you move past this top tier of artists it's extremely difficult to gauge influence and importance. For example, The Velvet Underground is cited by critics and some prominent artists as one of the most influential groups of the 60s but most people have no idea who the fuck they are; should their influence be judged based on how critics view them or the general public?

Velvet Underground is way way more popular than Nickel Creek and Chris Thile.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by LadyMadonna68

what makes anyone important

Being asked to play half-time at the superbowl 25 years from now means you ended up being important

[Sniper15]

Originally Posted by neumdogg

Why were people including John Mayer in their lists? What makes him important?

You can argue that John Mayer helped reinvigorate mainstream interest in the blues. I remember reading an article where Buddy Guy said something about Mayer being an important figure in rekindling the popularity of blues based music with young people. This raises another question; does being endorsed as a legend by other legends in your genre automatically make you a legend? Clapton, B.B King, and Buddy Guy have given Mayer high commendation; I think Guy called him the best guitar player of his generation. Should we view Mayer as important simply because the most important people in his genre view him as such?