Nah.

Name me 10 artists post 2001 that will still be listened to by high school kids in 2057.

Your moved goalposts are stupid and irrelevant.

What does this have to do with anything? The older population's nostalgia and reluctance to discover new music within the current time period doesn't actually mean those older groups were better just because they are still played all the bleeding time.

It doesn't mean they are worse either, but that kind of reasoning is plain silly.

**** this snobbery. Rolling Stone's top whatever lists are a great way to fill voids in your musical lexicon. I've gone through their lists many times making a point to learn about any names I'm not familiar with.

Those are all good bands to listen to. It seems like a lot of the stuff you like is in the transition phase of what I'm talking about. I like everyone of those bands and none of them seem particularly interested in pushing the envelope. Even the Lips' most experimental stuff feels mostly retro and they're one of my favorite bands of all time.

Future
Tim Hecker
William Basinski
Earl Sweatshirt
Moor Mother
Pig Destroyer
Phillip Jeck
The High Schools Don't Exist Anymore
The Ain't Nobody Knows
Noosefiller

I'm gonna chuckle of you think high school kids are going to be listening to Zeppelin on any kind of wide scale in 2057.

But ja, not exactly relevant to the quality of music, especially given the way that the music world is evolving. I can name you ten 21st century artists that I consider among the greatest of all time though. Every decade has some at least, and ease in recording has made us very lucky that we can access so much music from the last 50 years.

Few pages back great post by Nea. Fisher makes many of the same points

Frown, Zep has already survived 40 years of time test so that's not exactly the point. I personally think their sound is very resilient to aging and may very well be a teenage rite of passage even 40 years on. Who knows what's going to fade and resurface and all that but take for example a song like Tangerine. I don't only see it lasting decades; I see it lasting centuries. Time will tell.

Please do. Your faves go straight on my playlists.

Zep will certainly have its place in the music world in 40 years, that's undeniable. I just don't think that it'll be to the extent where high school students listen to them in large numbers or are even conscious of them. Honestly, we might already be pretty close to that tipping point.

Since I'll be dead I'm going to leave bumping this thread 40 years on to you.

I've mentioned some already and you've probably heard them all but

Zu (technically 90s because they started in 99 but ja)
Richard Dawson
Deathspell Omega
Colin Stetson
Matana Roberts
Oneohtrix Point Never
Conjuring
Kreng
Resurrectionists
Strobes

Will do. Come to think of it, my point about the internet might be what proves me wrong on this one with increased access to info and such.

First off, triple **** yes. I think anything you mention is worth examining but this name jumped out at me. I believe I can make the case that all free jazz is really a reworking of Coltrane. I'm sure there are actually other examples but so far, to me, Stetson is the most important exception. I'm not saying he's without pre 21st C influence but his sound is tremendously unique and innovative and it's hard for me to imagine that he's not pioneering a new path of musical experimentation. Then on the other hand, his side work is often with musicians who are great but seemingly uninterested in challenging the status quo. He's such a great musician! Maybe the lesson to learn from him is that it has become passé to have an axe to grind.

We've talked about the Coltrane concept before, and how I think that it's easy to view jazz innovation as extrapolating on Coltrane because of the extent that he established the genre, which makes it hard to make new forms of music while still staying a jazz band.

Supersilent is one exception to your theory imo, although you could point to AMM as the origins of their sound. There's also what I call free rock (I guess the correct term is brutal prog but that has too much crossover with punky zeuhl so I think there needs to be a new term for this branch), the new form of heavy jazz fusion that I'm seeing become more common through artists like Ultralyd, Zu, Flying Luttenbachers, The Thing, and Sanhedolin, although the Coltrane influence is still heavy.

An interesting side note, I can hear Coltrane's influence loud and clear in a lot of the artists that are driving metal forward (there are a lot of them right now). A couple that I mentioned earlier like Deathspell Omega and Conjuring are good examples of that.

Actually, from a melodic perspective, 2000 could have been more like 1983. On the other hand, the production of most stuff was probably more like 2017.

Please give examples. I don't think anybody could just know what you mean.

Well let's look at alternative, indie and pop-rock stuff, which are the genres that I have the best musical knowledge of. Here are some examples of songs from c.1983 (add or deduct 3-4 years either way):

Chartered Trips by Husker Du
That's When I Reach For My Revolver by Mission of Burma
This Charming Man by The Smiths
Just Like Heaven by The Cure
Left of The Dial by The Replacements


Now c.2000:

Learn to Fly by Foo Fighters
Bliss by Muse
Untitled by Interpol
Warning by Green Day
Clocks by Coldplay

And c.2017:

Run by Foo Fighters
Thunder by Imagine Dragons
Parachute by Kaiser Chiefs
Toothbrush by DNCE

It feels like song structures have become more variable yet harder to remember (in my opinion negative) in the last 17 years. I love all of the c.2000 songs listed and like the c.1983 ones too, yet none of the c.2017 songs do anything for me.

I feel like letting time sort out the mess works heavily in your favor.

You got good stuff on that '83 list.

I also have a better idea of what you're saying with those examples.

What do you mean?

I mean it helps explain this statement

Ah. I have a couple of questions regarding your answer if that's okay.

First of all, what would you say the difference is between the 2000 and 2017 examples in your opinion?

Secondly, are any well known newer bands still producing music similar to the 2000 examples, and if not, why not?

Plus, what did you mean by "I feel like letting time sort out the mess works heavily in your favor"?

*Convulsing

Interpol and Muse are bands that I respect.

Maybe they're winding down but The National maybe. If anyone more tuned into the pop side of things wants to please chime in. I think the National are worth listening to but their sound harkens further back. This next statement doesn't directly deal with your question but I think you'd do better to spend your time with Purity Ring.

You're 83 list demonstrates more sophistication in my opinion. For the recent stuff I think you're listening to the wrong stuff.

I took a musical preference test a few weeks back and got a higher score than about 90% of people in the unpretentious category, and a higher score than about 80% of people in the intense category. In your opinion does this reflect in the examples I gave in the 1983/2000 lists?

A modern exception would be that there's one recent band called Total Babes whose music almost completely fits in with the late 80s Dinosaur Jr and My Bloody Valentine stuff, in particular songs such as "We'll Come Around" (the keyboard sound even reminds me a little of some of the Husker Du keyboard).

Unfortunately I seem to be the only person I know my own age who likes the style of music I like. Virtually everybody else I know my age likes primarily mainstream 2010s pop or 2010s "alternative", which I find just as forgettable.

Link? Because that sounds sketchy.

I don't have the link but copied the text into MS Word:

Here are your musical preference scores:

Your preference score for Mellow music: 26 (High-average) (Soft rock etc; )

Your preference score for Unpretentious music 28 (Very high) (Folk and country)

Your preference score for Sophisticated music: 11 (Very low) (Classical, free-form jazz etc; )

Your preference score for Intense music: 32 (High) (Rock, indie, alternative)

Your preference score for Contemporary music: 13 (Quite low) (Dance, rap, 2010s pop etc; )

It was the test at this website:

http://www.musicaluniverse.org/

I meant a link to the quiz, because I wonder how their scoring works.

I've amended it :) .

Yes. And I respect that you like what you like.

Dinosaur and MBV have such different sounds that a band that combines them should be reasonably unique. I wish more bands copied Dinosaur. Have you heard Deafcult? I'll be damned if they don't have the MBV thing down to the letter. Not an original bone in their bodies but absolutely fantastic at what they do.

I've even recorded a few demos of songs I wrote myself and other people said they reminded them far more of music from the 80s/90s (like the 1983/2000 examples I shared) than what's being released today. The thing is that I seem unable to write songs to the current taste - it's not what I'm suited to do.

You should make Frownland a large bet, like a couple of grand, like really huge. By the time 2057 rolls around you'll be 97 years old and in need of the money.

Artists from today that might be listened by the youth 40 years from now is a tough one. Probably Kanye and Kendrick, and I'm a little iffy on Kendrick. I think that QOTSA has staying power, but they technically got their start in 98.

98 00 whatever

I don't want this to be a gotcha thread like that band from the 90's thread

QOTSA

and

GSY!BE

Are both bands with real potential staying power and they both have long names.

I thought about Godspeed and would have mentioned them if I wasn't talking about that specific audience, since I don't think they've breached it on a significant enough level.

Completely false. Plus, it outs you as an ageist bigot.

If we're measuring in popularity you could make the argument that they didn't really get that staying power til 2000

High school kids as a whole? Bro their taste is garbage.

Ja, it's why I brought them up despite their earlier origin date.

These are about the only songs I actually like from the past couple of years:

*I found Bob Mould's album from last year pretty memorable, much like the earlier Foo Fighters stuff
*I like Sean by Foo Fighters (from 2015) and it has a Husker Du vibe
*I like the song Presidici from The Jesus and Mary Chain's recent album
*I also enjoy some of the songs by Total Babes, in particular We'll Come Around, from 2015

I think they and Stars of the Lid, Boards of Canada, and Sigur Ros all have tremendous staying power and yes I know I'm digging deeper and deeper into the 90's.

OXOXOXO

Is there much difference between today's fans of the incredible amount of drone/ambient music and the fans of Windham Hill back then?

Tim Hecker, Robert Rich - whatever grew out of Eno. Is it really so different or is primarily the marketing? I get that it sounds different but the aesthetic not to disrupt...

Hell, to me even music in the vein of Lustmord hits me in a similar way. Dark ambient remains equally non-disturbing if you're reading a creepy novel.

It's superior to the typical person five years out of college who pretends not to have time for music anymore. I'll take the opinion of a 16 year old over a 36 year old any day. Serious music fans (who irl are very rare) excluded. High school kids may almost universally reject good music that doesn't fit inside their peer designed boxes but the stuff the do herald usually has merit. Plus, with so many kids finding music on YouTube their tastes are often more exotic than you might think.