Iconic/Revered Musicians of the 00s?

[Ian]

So I'm working on this art project that depicts some of the most iconic/revered musicians of the last decade (for their art moreso than their persona) watching the ushering in of a new decade.  It's supposed to cover several genres, right now I have the basic Thom Yorke for indie, Kanye/Eminem/Wayne for rap (can't decide on that one), Billy Joe for Punk Rock, Timberlake for mainstream pop, Omar/Cedric for progressive, you get the picture.  I want to include at least one jazz and metal musicians though, maybe a country musician, but I don't really keep up with those genres.  Who would you say were the big names this decade that are both recognizeable and well-respected for their output?  Feel free to comment on any genre, Jazz and Metal are just the ones I'm having the most trouble with.  I need more female representation too.

Others I'm thinking about are Wayne Coyle, Jeff Tweedy, Win Butler, Avey/Panda, Omar/Cedric, Beyonce, Ben Gibbard, Bradford Cox.

[Aaron]

Maybe it's my personal bias, but Lil Wayne should never be referred to as iconic or revered.  He hasn't earned it.    For rap, it should be Kanye, even though it pains me to say that.  Eminem has been invisible for about 4-5 years.  His bigtime was in the late 90s and early part of this decade.   If he had kept going strong since 2004, then I would put him over Kanye. 

[Ian]

Yeah, I would definitely put Wayne last of the three.  It's just that he was so big last year and coming into this year that I was tempted by it.  Eminem and Kanye are much closer.

[Aaron]

A tough part in all of this is trying to get in the head of the artists to see who they feel is the most iconic.  The general public would usually say who gets the most pub or who is featured on iTunes.  I'm not sure a lot of rap and hip/hop artists would say Kanye, or that Panda Bear would top the list in its genre.  So, yeah, it's a hard list to compile.

[spacebrat311]

For rap it should be Jay Z. Kanye is iconic, but no one is really emulating Kanye, he is an emulator. If you're looking for a balance between mainstream exposure, and people artists look up to, Jay-Z seems like the best of both worlds.

[Aaron]

For rap it should be Jay Z.

I was thinking about that one but it didn't register right away.  You're right - he has done more for the industry as a whole (recording, producing, heading up a label, being a businessman outside of music, etc.  - plus he is lightyears better than Kanye, Em, or Wayne)

[danny316]

To be honest, I'd say the In Rainbows stunt was the only thing big enough to qualify as an iconic musical moment of the decade.

...and in terms of influence, that's a band that belongs squarely in the 90's.

In the CCM world, I'd feel comfortable pointing to Switchfoot/Jon Foreman here. I think a case could be made for Nickel Creek in the bluegrass world.

I'm hesitant to point too much to individual musicians - how much of the Arcade Fire's sound is Win Butler personally responsible for, anyway? Jack White's cross-pollination gimmicks might earn him some notoriety down the line, but I can't think of many individual musicians who are really all that big these days.

[Vlad!]

I don't know if there's someone iconic in just the 00s for metal, but James Hetfield or Axl Rose are both certainly possibilities. I would say especially Hetfield, since Metallica is absolutely both a strong performance band and a strong studio band; while Chinese Democracy may finally have come, the Guns and Roses cover bands sound better than the real GnR live nowadays. Death Magnetic certainly makes a compelling argument that Metallica is every bit as relevant in this decade as it was in the last.

[murlough23]

To be honest, I'd say the In Rainbows stunt was the only thing big enough to qualify as an iconic musical moment of the decade.

...and in terms of influence, that's a band that belongs squarely in the 90's.

I'd say Radiohead continues to be very influential, and not just in terms of their marketing. Plenty of bands have taken cues from both their sound, both from this decade and from the 90's. They're revered to the point of ridiculousness.

In the CCM world, I'd feel comfortable pointing to Switchfoot/Jon Foreman here.

Not sure how much influence they've had on the outside world, but Foreman surely is a busy beaver. I think it's admirable that he's able to work on three projects within the same year and turn out quality work with each (I guess we'll see about the Switchfoot album, but I've enjoyed all their past ones).

I think a case could be made for Nickel Creek in the bluegrass world.

I have no idea how influential they are, but I sure as hell will miss 'em.

[Aaron]

I don't know if there's someone iconic in just the 00s for metal, but James Hetfield or Axl Rose are both certainly possibilities. I would say especially Hetfield, since Metallica is absolutely both a strong performance band and a strong studio band; while Chinese Democracy may finally have come, the Guns and Roses cover bands sound better than the real GnR live nowadays. Death Magnetic certainly makes a compelling argument that Metallica is every bit as relevant in this decade as it was in the last.

Not even close for Axl.

[danny316]

I'd say Radiohead continues to be very influential, and not just in terms of their marketing. Plenty of bands have taken cues from both their sound, both from this decade and from the 90's. They're revered to the point of ridiculousness.

The marketing stunt was a great way of breaking through the increasingly divided music culture and making it an album everyone heard. You hear older music fans occasionally talk about albums from years gone by that were so widely respected that seemingly everybody heard them. Nobody gets that sort of recognition these days, but the combination of being a respected band like Radiohead and making the album essentially free did a spectacular job of making it the most widely heard album in quite some time. Maybe this is a side effect of being in a college area at the time, but I swear, everywhere I went from November '07 to January '08 was playing In Rainbows.

...I don't think IR is as good as OKC or The Bends, but I think in order to be iconic and revered, a certain mix of popularity and respectability are required - and from my view, this put them over the top in the popularity category (probably because curious onlookers now no longer had an excuse not to try their new one).

In fairness though, I think they were more than influential enough beforehand. If you ask me, being iconic requires a bit more than just being influential.

[spacebrat311]

I would argue that the lessons of Radiohead will continue to be assimilated for decades after they stop making music.

Hyperbolic statement time:

I firmly believe that Radiohead are the closest thing this generation has to The Beatles in terms of musical influence, and that we will not fully see how true this is for decades to come. I also think that no band fully learned the lessons of The Beatles until Radiohead, and it will be further decades before someone fully learns the lessons posed by Radiohead.

[bloop]

I think Radiohead are well-revered (I wouldn't go so far as to say "to the point of ridiculousness"), but I don't think that many bands have really taken their cues from them, and I'm not sure whether or not that's unfortunate.

The music scene is incredibly splintered, so it's hard to find many icons.

[Josh]

For hip-hop, I think Kanye and Jay are both fine choices, but Outkast is just as important, for Stankonia alone. (Not to mention "Hey Ya!")

And let's not forget about one of the most important and influential movements of the decade: The garage-rock revival, spearheaded by The White Stripes and the Strokes.

Of course, the hipster set would never give a second thought to iconic singer-songwriters, but no one in the 00s has made music as consistently imaginative and forward-thinking and artful as Tom Waits and Joe Henry.

[bloop]

I've always perceived that Tom Waits is pretty popular in the hipster set.  His musical choices tend weird enough.

Good point on the garage rockers.

[Vlad!]

Not even close for Axl.

Yeah, I put him in there mostly because of the past rather than the present. Still, I hear GnR songs on the radio more frequently than those of some modern bands, and unlike Hetfield, who mostly touts the band rather than himself, Axl was, and to some degree still is, known for his personality and antics as much as for his music. Iconic, definitely. Revered? Maybe not so much.

[NinjaRob17]

It's really hard coming up with a single iconic musician for the metal category. If it were bands, I'd say Mastodon, hands down.

[Josh]

For American roots music, Buddy Miller is a pretty sensible choice (for his production work as much as his own records).

It'd be a shame not to acknowledge the revival of soul music; Solomon Burke and Bettye LaVette both work, though Joe Henry might be the best choice here, too (for his production work).

[murlough23]

How about Sigur Ros? They influenced Radiohead. Kid A and future experiments might not have been the same otherwise. I've also started to notice how Sigur Ros has quietly gone from fairly obscure to highly influential, at least on a lot of the more "ambient" indie rock bands that I've picked up over the past few years (some Christian bands, too, which is no small feat for a foreign language band with a gay lead singer). But that could just me me and the kind of music I gravitate toward lately.

[spacebrat311]

Totally disagree about Sigur Ros. Where do you see Radiohead drawing from them? I see their later albums as drawing much more from the trip-hop scene, particularly Aphex Twin and DJ Shadow.

[murlough23]

Totally disagree about Sigur Ros. Where do you see Radiohead drawing from them?

Radiohead themselves claimed Agaetis Byrjun (which I guess is technically a 90's album) as a big influence at one point - but hell if I can find the article, it was from the Kid A era.

[Aaron]

Of course, the hipster set would never give a second thought to iconic singer-songwriters, but no one in the 00s has made music as consistently imaginative and forward-thinking and artful as Tom Waits and Joe Henry.

Perhaps. 


and regarding outkast - their output in the 90s is better than their output in the 2000s but they have had a big influence.  However, I think Jay-Z has had more.

[murlough23]

In your opinion.

Doesn't that describe this entire discussion?

[Aaron]

Doesn't that describe this entire discussion?

True, but when someone uses words that describe it as stone cold facts when they are stating opinion, it bothers me.  (neurotic, I know)

[murlough23]

True, but when someone uses words that describe it as stone cold facts when they are stating opinion, it bothers me.  (neurotic, I know)

That's not neurotic, it's perfectly reasonable. But in the end, we're just contributing to a list of names/faces that will be used in Ian's art project. Stone cold facts are hard to find when you're measuring how important/influential/all-around-good an artist's work is, so really all any of us can offer here are suggestions. There's not really a good metric for this sort of thing. I always try to think of who's influenced other artists, but then I think some people make really great art but don't influence many others because nobody is listening to their music, and then on the other hand, a lot of artists have been influenced by Creed.

[bloop]

There are some artists that, like it or not, are icons for this generation.  I think it's ok to state it in a matter-of-fact way.  The debate is usually on whether a person is deserving of that status rather than whether they have it.

i.e. John Lennon is an icon.  You don't have to like him, but he is.

[murlough23]

There are some artists that, like it or not, are icons for this generation.  I think it's ok to state it in a matter-of-fact way.  The debate is usually on whether a person is deserving of that status rather than whether they have it.

i.e. John Lennon is an icon.  You don't have to like him, but he is.

So then any discussion of the artist's actual merit is a moot point. We only care about how the artist is regarded by the general public and/or music intelligentsia. All of our own opinions and reactions are irrelevant to this discussion.

[bloop]

I'm . . . not sure what the Ian is going for.  OP?

On second thought, though, it might not be irrelevant.  John Lennon has had some time to settle whereas the artists of the noughties haven't yet.  So, carry on.

[Ian]

I was more thinking of artists that are generally well respected for their music as much if not moreso as their persona.  Thom Yorke is the ideal example.  His persona is very recognizeable and mostly well-liked, but it's his art that he's best respected for.

Also, I was aiming at individuals... while Sigur Ros (who influenced Radiohead on the tour they shared preceding Kid A) is certainly one of the more recognizeable bands this decade, I don't think Jonsi himself is quite so well known.  Same goes for Mastodon; they are definitely the metal band of this decade, but I don't think they have will ever have a member that is as well recognized as Axl (who well never be associated with the 00s, nor will the Metalica guy.  Or Tom Waits.).

Also wtf is up with this "naughties" thing

[murlough23]

Also, I was aiming at individuals... while Sigur Ros (who influenced Radiohead on the tour they shared preceding Kid A) is certainly one of the more recognizeable bands this decade, I don't think Jonsi himself is quite so well known.  Same goes for Mastodon; they are definitely the metal band of this decade, but I don't think they have will ever have a member that is as well recognized as Axl (who well never be associated with the 00s, nor will the Metalica guy.  Or Tom Waits.).

Yeah, the pool definitely gets a LOT smaller if you want frontmen with recognizable faces.

Also wtf is up with this "naughties" thing

"Naught" is another way of saying "zero" (as in "all for naught"). Since there's no agreed-upon way to pronounce "the 00's", some folks have decided that it's humorous to combine "nought-" with the expected "-ties" for any decade above 20, because it makes our decade "naughty", which I think is an apt description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)#Names_of_the_decade

[NinjaRob17]

What about Chris Martin? I'm thinking maybe Serj Tankian for metal (I'm using the term "metal" rather loosely here).

[Ian]

Forgot about Chris Martin, I would definitely agree with that, even though Coldplay's music is a bit notorious in some circles.

And now that I know the naughties thing I do hate it quite so much :D

[murlough23]

Forgot about Chris Martin, I would definitely agree with that, even though Coldplay's music is a bit notorious in some circles.

See that thing bloop said about John Lennon. (Not that I want to compare Martin to Lennon. I'm just sayin'.)

[Vlad!]

Forgot about Chris Martin, I would definitely agree with that, even though Coldplay's music is a bit notorious in some circles.

I don't know if I would count Coldplay as metal, but the lines between the genres are blurry enough that you can call anything metal if you sneer hard enough and throw up the horns while you're doing it. I certainly wouldn't say that Chris Martin is any more iconic than James Hetfield or even Lars Ullrich (who got himself some notoriety over the whole Napster/filesharing thing...and has even been featured on South Park. Can Chris Martin say the same?)

Not saying I don't like Coldplay, because I do, but in my admittedly limited experience Chris Martin's name isn't one of those that comes up when you think "metal icons" (although granted the 2000s also don't come up when I think "metal icons", since the era of Alice Cooper, Axl Rose, David Lee Roth, Bruce Dickinson, et. al. was definitely last-millennium).

[murlough23]

Coldplay is not metal by even the most remote stretch of the imagination. I don't think they were being suggested as such, but maybe the discussion of Chris Martin in the same sentence with some of the metal icons created a little confusion.

NP: "Vengeance Is Sleeping", Neko Case

[spacebrat311]

Of course, the hipster set would never give a second thought to iconic singer-songwriters, but no one in the 00s has made music as consistently imaginative and forward-thinking and artful as Tom Waits and Joe Henry.

Hipsters love Tom Waits.

I think Radiohead are well-revered (I wouldn't go so far as to say "to the point of ridiculousness"), but I don't think that many bands have really taken their cues from them, and I'm not sure whether or not that's unfortunate.

Really? I mean I still contend that Coldplay made the first half of their career simply by smoothing out the edges of Radiohead's Bends-era sound and making it radio-friendly, and I can't tell you how many bands I've seen go this route as well. Muse's entire sound was encompassed in one Radiohead song (The Trickster, off My Iron Lung EP). And those are just big bands. I also think a lot of modern indie rock owes a great debt to elements of Kid A and Amnesiac. The thing is that Radiohead is like the Beatles in that they pretty much just make music- you can't pin them down to a single genre or formula, because what makes them a great band is their versatility. This is why you never see bands that sound exactly like the Beatles, because bands for whom this would be a goal will probably focus in on one element of the sound and there by end up being not very similar to their idols at all. I hear very few bands in the 00s in the indie set that DON'T owe SOME sonic debt to Radiohead.

[murlough23]

I mean I still contend that Coldplay made the first half of their career simply by smoothing out the edges of Radiohead's Bends-era sound and making it radio-friendly

I wouldn't go that far. I've listened to The Bends many times, and I've listened to Parachutes (which I first heard at around the same time I first heard The Bends, so I was primed to investigate the comparison in detail) and A Rush of Blood to the Head many times. I can hear some of the Radiohead influence in some of the guitar stuff on those early records, but only where Coldplay's most aggressive stuff from those days met up with Radiohead's least aggressive. Jonny Greenwood likes to bend and twist his notes a bit. Coldplay's guitar style, while much smoother and generally softer up until recently, has a similar "bending" technique to it. But I think that influence is WAY overstated - it's there, but Coldplay clearly had other sources of inspiration (yes, besides U2). Really, I don't think Coldplay did anything to directly quote/pay homage to/rip off Radiohead until "42".

I hear very few bands in the 00s in the indie set that DON'T owe SOME sonic debt to Radiohead.

I WOULD go this far.

[bloop]

I was lamenting a bit that, unlike The Beatles, Radiohead doesn't occupy that space of being extremely popular (let's be honest.  they're popular, but not like the Beatles were) as well as being very artistically creative.  Indie is small beans - The Beatles were revolutionizing pop music as a whole.

[NinjaRob17]

I don't know if I would count Coldplay as metal, but the lines between the genres are blurry enough that you can call anything metal if you sneer hard enough and throw up the horns while you're doing it. I certainly wouldn't say that Chris Martin is any more iconic than James Hetfield or even Lars Ullrich (who got himself some notoriety over the whole Napster/filesharing thing...and has even been featured on South Park. Can Chris Martin say the same?)

Not saying I don't like Coldplay, because I do, but in my admittedly limited experience Chris Martin's name isn't one of those that comes up when you think "metal icons" (although granted the 2000s also don't come up when I think "metal icons", since the era of Alice Cooper, Axl Rose, David Lee Roth, Bruce Dickinson, et. al. was definitely last-millennium).

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that Coldplay is metal at all. I probably should have separated my post into two lines. I was just saying that, in general, Chris Martin is a rather iconic 00's musician.

[murlough23]

I was lamenting a bit that, unlike The Beatles, Radiohead doesn't occupy that space of being extremely popular (let's be honest.  they're popular, but not like the Beatles were) as well as being very artistically creative.  Indie is small beans - The Beatles were revolutionizing pop music as a whole.

The music scene is fragmented. Someone could be at the top of the pop charts right now and I could still have not heard of 'em. I don't think I'm alone. A huge mover and shaker in the indie world, or even in a reasonably popular genre, might still not have that much influence or recognition about the genre. Music as an industry has diversified and its identity as a single body of artists, assuming that ever existed in the first place, has shattered. I just don't think the current climate allows for anyone - no matter how talented or how revolutionary - to have that same level of influence as what the Beatles had. There's still new stuff to be invented, no doubt, but we live in a smaller world now, in terms of our ability to communicate, so a new and fresh idea is going to disseminate more quickly and be used by others more rapidly and probably not hold our attention for as long due to how quickly other ideas will be built off of it.

In other words, "Bigger than the Beatles" doesn't seem attainable in our current climate, even if a band is that unspeakably good on an artist level. The only way you can bigger than the Beatles is to be Jesus.