Who are the Beatles, Who, and Led Zep of today?

Cafe Society
41

I’ll put a bit of a different take on this; in the sixties, British bands (since the OP leans that way) were greatly influenced by American blues, and rhythm-and-blues musicians. They then enthusiastically created an impressive new form of rock music.
Why didn’t that happen here in the US initially? It did, that synthesis, plenty of good musicians, but it wasn’t given proper airplay, most probably due to the racial issues this country was going through at the time.

Britain, sans the angst of US racial issues, allowed the development of that music, which was so fine damn new to the ears, and it’s recording industry allowed it to be distributed and held in esteem, with fine British guys singing it. It was angry and rebellious, but not as threatening as the Black folks coming up. And, safe for them to come over with that “new” sound to the US.

That was a singular moment in history, a confluence of African American beat and white/European interpretation. That combo bore great fruit, through devoted minds of young musicians.

Now, it’s just not as slam bang new, there are so many permutations of music to choose from, and more media avenues, pretty overwhelming. i’m older, so don’t grab on to new music as much as I used to, 'tis a wonderful province of the young, as it should be. Most Rap doesn’t thrill me, but ocassionally I see that some amazing creativity in that form. It codifies in the same manner as blues.

42

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The famous line by Brian Eno* is “only 5,000 people bought the Velvet Underground’s first album, but every one of them started a band.”

Fortunately, 4993 of them stayed in their garage. Whereas Cream started heavy metal and hard rock and 100,000 bands exist because of them.

And really, who doesn’t know the names of Velvet Underground or Husker Du or Gang of Four or The Smiths. Who do you think they’re obscure to?

I don’t care what’s in your personal record collections. I’m looking at the overall picture of rock music for the past four decades. Not every big-selling band is influential. Not every influential band was big-selling. But that the influential bands sold big is the way to bet.

  • Or something like this or attributed to him or whatever.
43

It may be the greatest music ever created. But if most people aren’t listening to it, it isn’t influencing the genre. A band isn’t really revolutionary until there are a hundred other bands that sound like them.

The most recent bands that changed the way other bands sound were probably NWA and Nirvana.

44

Hmmm. That’s exactly what I said. Now let’s see if you get jumped on for it.

45

What genre? Rock? I wasn’t trying to claim it (they) did. Almost by definition, anything new has to be not-rock, or it isn’t new. I was trying to point out that hip-hop is not the only newer-than-rock musical style that is still evolving and exciting. To say that no one has innovated or influenced - and perhaps not influenced millions, but influenced new movements and genres of music - to say that no one is innovated except hip-hop artists is just wrong.

Again, I am and was focusing more on the innovation end of things than the influencing of millions. To be fair, I wasn’t thinking at all of the influencing other artists, but it does make sense while remaining consistent with what I did say - the most exciting and innovative music is stuff that’s not getting airplay on Clear Channel. It might be played on local stations, independent stations, college stations or HD stations, but it’s not on any of these stations, and it ain’t the stuff being pimped by Ryan Seacrest and American Idol.

46

The Police changed the landscape of rock, and I’d argue that their drummer did great things in the wake of Bonzo, Ginger Baker, and Keith Moon – all three of them defined a sound that was “tight, but BIG” and Copeland turned it around to be “pretty big, but REALLY TIGHT.” Sting’s songwriting, especially with the literary references and funky time signatures, were new. They took reggae and ska roots and popularized them, so that all of their influences were rolled up in one massively popular group.

Madonna and Michael Jackson re-redefined the radio / dance / pop media superstar performer – was there any single performer (except maybe Elvis) who stood out like either of them? They paved the way for shorter-lived radio-friendly pop tartlets; like it or not, they were massively popular and shaped and reshaped 80s pop. I grew up listening to the radio when everyone on the radio was trying to follow in Madonna or MJ’s footsteps. Michael Jackson gets a special mention here for being big during Motown, disco, and the 80’s.

Prince lived in MJ’s shadow, but was better at reinventing himself and his genre over and over (and over) again like Madonna, and also at giving the public exactly as much sex as they wanted (more, please) and feigning innocence when they feigned shock.

Pearl Jam was huge. Ten was released the same year as Nevermind and was still selling millions of copies when Kurt Cobain shot himself. Nirvana is the name everyone will mention as “grunge” because of their hit single, but Pearl Jam are still huge. Eventually, I think Nirvana is going to be remembered as “Dave Grohl’s first band,” and Pearl Jam will still be recording great rock albums. If you don’t think “Evenflow” was revolutionary, think about it in context: compare it to songs like “Communication Breakdown” and “Rocks Off” (Zep / Stones, respectively) and realize that a teenager hearing those songs for the first time had a nearly-religious experience because of the power of the guitar hook alone. They make epic music that will go on the same lofty shelf as Zep and the Stones in a few years.

Radiohead are also going to be looked back on as greatly influential, because the musicians and songwriters who are trying to innovate were all listening to OK Computer and The Bends when their bands started out. Most of the fresh sounds coming out on indie labels in the last few years owe a lot to Radiohead. Their second-degree influences (“Everyone who influenced us was influenced by Radiohead”) are going to be extraordinary.

I don’t care who the Velvet Underground influenced; I can’t stand most of their music. Just like Dylan, I’d rather listen to good bands with capable singers covering their groundbreaking works. Maybe my kids will say the same thing about Radiohead or Prince.

47

I just wanted to chime in here and say that, recently something I’ve been doing is finding out who influenced some of the bands that I like so dang much, and listening to them.

A common thread in a lot of the bands that I do like has been Johnny Cash.

I’m intrigued to see what you folks think of Mr. Cash and his influence both in his time and on the modern music scene.

48

The best band in the world is System of a Puddle of Linkin Slipbizkit. Or something.

49

I do know that Roger Daltrey sings Johnny Cash songs to warm up before going on stage.

50

Fortunately for who? People who prefer metal and hard rock? Personally, I’d rather listen to, say, The Clash, or R.E.M., or Television, or The Feelies, or Big Star (or Husker Du or Gang Of Four), than Foreigner or Styx or Iron Miaden or Limp Bizkit or Guns 'n Roses or Slipknot. But then, I’m not a big fan of pompous music and misogynistic lyrics.

Exactly my point. They’re obviously fairly well-known now, due to the fact that their influence has been acknowledged by so many bands since. But when they came out, they were virtual pariahs by normal music industry standards (The Smiths were much bigger in England, but I can tell you there weren’t a ton of fans in my American high school in their heyday). And I meet people all the time who haven’t heard of some of them, which keeps certain CD mixes I make in constant demand.

No, that the successful bands sold big is the way to bet, at least since the ‘60s. We could contrast for days, and I still bet the Ramones and Kraftwerk and The New York Dolls and The Stooges are gonna show up on more musicians’ lists of influences than Peter Frampton or ABBA or The Commodores or Rod Stewart.

51

In an effort to actually answer the OP, I’d say the three bands that are most influential and popular (in the rock genre) in music today is:

The Killers
Fall Out Boy
Panic! At the Disco

Yeah, I know, I weep too. :frowning:

(Once might be able to make a case for Modest Mouse and maybe Franz Ferdinand as well)

(Although to be said, The Killers and Modest Mouse aren’t bad, but nowhere neat the Stones, Who, Zep, Beatles, etc…)

52

Most people have never heard of the Velvet Underground or the New York Dolls or Hüsker Dü because oldies stations (you know, the current source for all music of that era and the only people who hype it these days) don’t play them. Yet denying their influence is ignorance born of a strange kind of arrogant élitism, the notion that you and your music-ignorant friends know more about real music than people who actually study the subject and find recordings from bands out of the mainstream.

This has nothing to do with good or bad. This has everything to do with history.

53

I’d suggest that The White Stripes (and/or the Raconteurs) might eventually be looked back upon as the most influential band of this time period. But it’s really too early to tell: Jack White has done some interesting work and has gained some critical and popular acclaim but I can’t point my finger at any other people who are noticably influenced by him.

54

Just to correct this - ‘grunge’ started in the mid 1980s. It was thrust into the mainstream around 1990. The influence of this genre pervades much of today’s music. To say grunge was short-lived is like saying hip-hop was short-lived.

On the OP, and from the 80s onward….

If you thinking of influential, very popular and very prolific. Madonna, Michael Jackson, U2 and REM come to mind.

Then there are bands that were popular and very influential: e.g. Joy Division, The Stone Roses, Talking Heads, Oasis, Beasty Boys, AC/DC, Public Enemy, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Radiohead, The Jam, The Cure, Yello, The Smiths, Pixies,

Then there are bands that were not that popular but very influential: e.g. Mudhoney, feedtime, Scientists, Ministry, Birthday Party, amongst many more.

And from the 70s, don’t forget the Stooges - one of the most influential bands ever.

55

The answer is Matchbox 20.

It really doesn’t matter what the question is.

56

Boy, are you barking up the wrong tree. I guess my reputation for trashing metal and hair bands and essentially every hard rock outfit since Led Zeppelin doesn’t precede me. :slight_smile:

But I also trash the whole notion that attitude trumps ability and that not being able to play your instrument doesn’t matter if you can put enough emotion behind your stage act. Pfui, to quote Nero Wolfe. And that has all too often been the legacy of the influential but not successful bands. Which is why they spawn a lot of bands but don’t make big money. Good, say I.

And WhyNot, you keep making a distinction between influential and innovative. Could you make a list of the influential bands who weren’t innovative? I assure you: it won’t take long.

57

20 years from now, when the top of the charts are held by American Idol XVIII, American Idol XVII, American Idol Country XI, and American Idol Rapper IV, we’ll look back on this era and realize the most important musical figure of the last 20 years was Simon Cowell.

Oh, sorry. That was just a nightmare I had.

Seriously… I’m not sure you can still have a band or person with the kind of influence the Beatles had. The music industry is just too fragmented. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, there were basically two kinds of radio stations - rock and country. In rock radio, it was further split into FM ‘album rock’, and AM ‘pop’. The same bands could be heard on both. That means almost every kid listened to the same music. A band that could capture that market had massive influence over the others.

Today, we have all kinds of sub-genres of pop music. Rock, R&B, rap, alt country, punk, alternative, you name it. And within each of those genres there’s further fragmentation into major label artists vs indie artists, and many distribution mechanisms. I haven’t even turned on a radio to listen to music in several years. I’ve got my Mp3 player and burned CD’s for the car, and my MP3 jukebox for the home. Sirius and XM radio give people hundreds of channels to listen to.

In addition, new artists have to compete against the back catalog. If you want to listen to rock music, you’ve got 40 years of songs to choose from. In the 1970’s, if you wanted to listen to rock you had maybe 10 years of songs to choose from, but a lot of the 60’s stuff sounded pretty stale then (even more so than it does today, for some reason). The result was that you listened to the new music artists were putting out, or you listened to nothing at all. That gave those artists a lot of power to shape opinion and push music into new directions.

There are still influential artists, but they tend to have influence within their genre, not on pop music as a whole.

58

Boston.

59

A really good and informative post. You gave me a lot of material that I can use with Google to learn more. Thanks! :slight_smile:

60

Exapno’s got a point, but so does Sam Stone. It’s fair to say that, within any given genre, the most influential acts tend to be the best-selling, but they’re by no means necessarily the best-selling overall, and very likely won’t get any terrestrial radio exposure. But these days, the people who care about music–and this includes a lot of musicians–aren’t just listening to terrestrial radio.

Here’s the thing about terrestrial radio: the economic constraints are such that not many stations can be adventurous with what they play. In a small market, the audience just isn’t there for anything but the most widely appealing material, and in a large market, the broadcast licenses are just too expensive for a station to play anything but the most widely appealing material. You need a medium-sized market with a sizeable population of adventurous listeners to have a chance at making a profit playing something unusual. Ten years ago Columbus, Ohio was such a market–it wasn’t a large city (about 2 million people) and it had at least 50,000 adventurous listeners at Ohio State every year. I doubt it’s changed that much, but I haven’t lived there in a decade, so I can’t say what it’s like today.

The point is that for the most part, radio stations are only going to play things that are very likely to draw in listeners to hear their ads. It’s not the 60s anymore, and the revolution is not being broadcast.