Your Favorite Bands Whose First Album Was Released AFTER the Year 2000

[southside]

Originally Posted by SAR I

Paul McCartney (without Wings).

SAR I

+1

[PocketJet]

After 2000.... I can't think of one - LOL

How about 1966-72? great music

[southside]

Originally Posted by PocketJet

After 2000.... I can't think of one - LOL

How about 1966-72? great music

Apparently it doesn't matter so just name whatever artist you feel like because the rules don't apply to you.

[Apache 51]

[Borgoguy]

Originally Posted by PocketJet

After 2000.... I can't think of one - LOL

How about 1966-72? great music

I always come back to this the same point: Put any reasonably successful act from that era on tour today (we'll assume everyone's alive and still spry enough to hold their instruments or sing) and they'd sell out stadiums or big arenas.

Now, pick any band from the 2000s and fast forward the same amount of time as the previously mentioned era. Anyone believe they could do the same? Not a chance in hell.

[McGinley]

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by Borgoguy

I always come back to this the same point: Put any reasonably successful act from that era on tour today (we'll assume everyone's alive and still spry enough to hold their instruments or sing) and they'd sell out stadiums or big arenas.

Now, pick any band from the 2000s and fast forward the same amount of time as the previously mentioned era. Anyone believe they could do the same? Not a chance in hell.

I don't see it. Mainstream music these days is too popified/over produced. I don't see those era musicians being big in this generation outside of college/alternative music formats.

[Borgoguy]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

Is this a joke? Most of those acts would be considered Indy at best in this pop/iTunes era.

Keep dreaming. Even bands like the Beatles were considered pop.

Fifty years later, most people can hum a melody from songs by The Stones, Floyd, Zep, you name 'em. You really believe this will be the case in 50 years with even the best Indie group of today? That's truly laughable. The majority of the listening public couldn't do it right now.

[McGinley]

Just a funny thought, but The Beatles were the One Direction of their era. Just so we're all clear on that.

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by Borgoguy

Keep dreaming. Even bands like the Beatles were considered pop.

Fifty years later, most people can hum a melody from songs by The Stones, Floyd, Zep, you name 'em. You really believe this will be the case in 50 years with even the best Indie group of today? That's truly laughable. The majority of the listening public couldn't do it right now.

I guess I wasn't clear in my statement. I was by no means trying to say that today's music would translate to that time period or future periods.I am saying that the way music is now in the current time period, I don't see those acts being ultra successfull in 2013. This isn't a knock on that music, shoot its probably my favorite, more a reflection of what is popular in this time period.

[Borgoguy]

Originally Posted by McGinley

Just a funny thought, but The Beatles were the One Direction of their era. Just so we're all clear on that.

LOL. Only with talent.

Actually, The Beatles made their bones as the consummate bar band in their native Liverpool, and then for an extended stay in rough & tumble Hamburg. Probably the original "grunge".

Originally Posted by Ruby2

I guess I wasn't clear in my statement. I was by no means trying to say that today's music would translate to that time period or future periods.I am saying that the way music is now in the current time period, I don't see those acts being ultra successfull in 2013. This isn't a knock on that music, shoot its probably my favorite, more a reflection of what is popular in this time period.

Sorry for misunderstanding, Ruby2. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Back then, folks were more interested in bands and musicians who could play their instruments. Now, the vocalist/vocal groups are in vogue.

[McGinley]

Perhaps, but the fundamentals are still there. Good looking guys, clean/polished look, millions of screaming girls.

I wonder what would happen if One Direction took LSD, though. Hmm...

[greenwichjetfan]

Originally Posted by Borgoguy

I always come back to this the same point: Put any reasonably successful act from that era on tour today (we'll assume everyone's alive and still spry enough to hold their instruments or sing) and they'd sell out stadiums or big arenas.

Now, pick any band from the 2000s and fast forward the same amount of time as the previously mentioned era. Anyone believe they could do the same? Not a chance in hell.

Originally Posted by Ruby2

I don't see it. Mainstream music these days is too popified/over produced. I don't see those era musicians being big in this generation outside of college/alternative music formats.

Originally Posted by Borgoguy

Keep dreaming. Even bands like the Beatles were considered pop.

Fifty years later, most people can hum a melody from songs by The Stones, Floyd, Zep, you name 'em. You really believe this will be the case in 50 years with even the best Indie group of today? That's truly laughable. The majority of the listening public couldn't do it right now.

Originally Posted by Borgoguy

Sorry for misunderstanding, Ruby2. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Back then, folks were more interested in bands and musicians who could play their instruments. Now, the vocalist/vocal groups are in vogue.

Maybe it's the snow making me pensive, but I subscribe to the fact that its just a study in scarcity.

From what I understand, back then, music was new to everyone. If you weren't listening to it live, for all intents and purposes, you really weren't listening to music.

It was different and made you feel good. It was a social experience where you went out for drinks and smokes (and other stuff) with a ****-ton of people, and got lost in sounds you didn't know existed.

From a playing standpoint, you actually had to have talent/skill/passion for it, because you weren't going to get rich from it or get the girl or win fame. It was something you did because you loved creating something unique to the world.

Now, every 7 year old walks around with headphones on silently listening to his own music, completely desensitized to what it even means to have music. This is because every wannabe who can pick up a guitar or make two sentences rhyme or has access to a mic or computer is on YouTube and or the radio, or DJibg for his highschool and friends. Music has become spaced out and expanded dry. There's like 10 genres now for each 1 genre there was back then. There are 4 genre-subsets to encompass literally a series of noises laced through a computer with someone backing it with his or her off-pitch vocals (dubstep/chillstep/brostep/glitchstep)...not that I don't enjoy it; bro step is funky at clubs, and chillstep is awesome to study to....its just that it's not music, yet there are four different legions of fans who subscribe to why each is better than the others.

And with all of this constant influx of music, we become desensitized. If you asked anyone from my generation who their favorite act is, they'd rattle off at least 5 artists comprising probably three or more genres.

Back then, it was easy to be the kings of music cuz there was no real competition as the artist, and because it was so new and cool and inaccessible, the public flocked to it. I don't know that music today is so much different or worse than back then. The qualities are still similar... Lots of it is to rebel against parents/culture/mainstream, and lots of it is simply to feel good. Parents still think their kids music is 'just noise' as they did back when Zep was tearing it up...it's just a matter of scarcity.

/snowdayprententiousthesis.

[Beerfish]

None. Which is a shame because I'm sure there is some very fine stuff out there. I just do not listen to the radio for tunes at all anymore. I'm stuck with the old stuff. Also I don't have kids so no forced exposure to the new music.

[Borgoguy]

Originally Posted by greenwichjetfan

Maybe it's the snow making me pensive, but I subscribe to the fact that its just a study in scarcity.

From what I understand, back then, music was new to everyone. If you weren't listening to it live, for all intents and purposes, you really weren't listening to music.

It was different and made you feel good. It was a social experience where you went out for drinks and smokes (and other stuff) with a ****-ton of people, and got lost in sounds you didn't know existed.

From a playing standpoint, you actually had to have talent/skill/passion for it, because you weren't going to get rich from it or get the girl or win fame. It was something you did because you loved creating something unique to the world.

Now, every 7 year old walks around with headphones on silently listening to his own music, completely desensitized to what it even means to have music. This is because every wannabe who can pick up a guitar or make two sentences rhyme or has access to a mic or computer is on YouTube and or the radio, or DJibg for his highschool and friends. Music has become spaced out and expanded dry. There's like 10 genres now for each 1 genre there was back then. There are 4 genre-subsets to encompass literally a series of noises laced through a computer with someone backing it with his or her off-pitch vocals (dubstep/chillstep/brostep/glitchstep)...not that I don't enjoy it; bro step is funky at clubs, and chillstep is awesome to study to....its just that it's not music, yet there are four different legions of fans who subscribe to why each is better than the others.

And with all of this constant influx of music, we become desensitized. If you asked anyone from my generation who their favorite act is, they'd rattle off at least 5 artists comprising probably three or more genres.

Back then, it was easy to be the kings of music cuz there was no real competition as the artist, and because it was so new and cool and inaccessible, the public flocked to it. I don't know that music today is so much different or worse than back then. The qualities are still similar... Lots of it is to rebel against parents/culture/mainstream, and lots of it is simply to feel good. Parents still think their kids music is 'just noise' as they did back when Zep was tearing it up...it's just a matter of scarcity.

/snowdayprententiousthesis.

Very well thought out post, greenwich. IMO, the monumental shift occurred when Chuck Berry took rudiments of blues, swing, and jazz; then played them his unique way. What we now call "rock & roll". It was truly rock's first "golden age", whose riffs and chord patterns still dominate rock/pop/country music today.

Plus, Berry had two relatively new weapons in his arsenal, the electric guitar and amplification. Until Les Paul created the electric version, the acoustic guitar was almost a rhythm instrument, as even with a resonator, it was not easily heard over big bands or orchestras. Now, a visionary like Berry could be heard, and seen, front and center, which turned on tons of future artists like Page, Beck, Lennon, Scotty Moore, Elvis, Richards, to name just a few.

[Guitarjet]

Mumford and Son's
Brad Paisley's American Saturday Night..... The guitar work is amazing, even if it is country
Mark Broussard: Cerencro

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by crasherino

Any love for Yonder Mountain String Band? I think their first album was in 99', but that's in the 'close enough I don't give a ****' category.

Big fan, but they don't fit the bill

There's quite a few good bands in this thread, but I'm shocked no one has brought Gary Clark Jr to the table yet

[Jetworks]

I'm a 44 year old guy who really likes alternative music. I also love the bands of the '60s and '70s. The inability for some folks to get on the bus with alternative music is no big deal, they are just stuck with what brought them happiness and a comfort level. But to say that the bands nowadays are not passionate/talented/successful is a bit myopic imho.

[greenwichjetfan]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

I'm a 44 year old guy who really likes alternative music. I also love the bands of the '60s and '70s. The inability for some folks to get on the bus with alternative music is no big deal, they are just stuck with what brought them happiness and a comfort level. But to say that the bands nowadays are not passionate/talented/successful is a bit myopic imho.

Based on the last sentence, I assume this post was directed at or in response to me.

Alternative music is awesome, and I actually don't follow much mainstream. I love so many (maybe too many) different kinds of music, and typically am opposed to labeling any of them as a specific type.

I never said today's musicians didn't have passion or talent. Quite the opposite, I think today's musicians have much more talent...as is standard in the evolution of anything.

My long rant was simply to give my version of reasoning/justification to Borgo's post about today's musicians not being able to fully sell out arenas 40 yrs from now, the way the artists of 40 years ago still are today.

[OrangeJet]

Originally Posted by Borgoguy

I always come back to this the same point: Put any reasonably successful act from that era on tour today (we'll assume everyone's alive and still spry enough to hold their instruments or sing) and they'd sell out stadiums or big arenas.

Now, pick any band from the 2000s and fast forward the same amount of time as the previously mentioned era. Anyone believe they could do the same? Not a chance in hell.

There is so much good music out there today, and yes, just as much now as there was in the 70's, if not more.

Modern music buyers just aren't into it...it's buried, but it's there...lots of it. You just have to look.

Too many old codgers are too busy saying it's not like the good old days anymore, and fail to bother to take the time to seek it out, or if they have, give it a fair shot.

The internet is a gold mine for high quality music. I can't keep up with how much good music there is.