Modern Day Equivalents Of Classic/Legendary Bands

[Gowienczyk]

Muse... the only good band in this decade. I guess if you haven't heard ****, sure.

[Fizzeler]

For me, Muse is the ONLY decent band to emerge from this decade so far. I rank them right up there with Radiohead (one of the greatest bands still active), and I *do* see Thom Yorke and Matt Bellamy as the new standard-bearers for Floyd and art/space prog. In some respects, I'd even elevate Muse *over* Floyd (yes, I went there) on technical merit alone --- Floyd is stoner rock, while Muse is hard-driving, hard-gunning, ass-kicking variations on the themes that Roger and David and Syd were developing in the 70s.

I would put Transatlantic and The Tangent as great bands that emerged this decade

[Cubecubed]

Being a fan of a band =/= being influenced by it musically

they literally said "hey this is what influenced us." maybe they are confused as to what that means,lol.

[BlackwaterPark]

Muse is the ONLY decent band to emerge from this decade so far.

Muse is a great band, but hardly the only one; though one could justifiably say the only decent POPULAR band this decade. There are hundreds of amazing new bands, they're just all "off the radar" so you probably haven't heard of any of them.

[Sibtiger]

Hate to contribute to the derail but Muse is so not the new Pink Floyd in so many ways. It's just totally different. I would say that Muse is the new Queen before I said they were the new Floyd, but I wouldn't say that either.

To contribute, in a slightly different way, Carl Newman is the new Brian Wilson. A clever and prolific songwriter who crafts memorable pop hooks, with wonderful harmonies and a high degree of creativity. Often writes cryptic lyrics that in no way detract from the irresistible catchiness of the songs.

[thedaniel]

Leftover Crack is the new Dead Kennedys. Their lyrics are both heavily political with a slight bit of satire. Also, there is something slightly bizarre about the voices of the lead singers of both bands, but that's what makes them great. On top of that LoC is signed to Jello Biafra's label.

[SputnikDX]

Tally Hall is the new Beatles without the popularity. They've been around since 2001 or something and no one has heard of them, despite being picked up by Atlantic and trying to go public.

Welcome to Tally Hall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nygxz...e=channel_page
Ruler of Everything http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn18F...e=channel_page
Good Day (demo) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOLA-ZCeKyM
Sacred Beast (new; live) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dk-eMbqjCQ

[cherokeesam]

Muse is a great band, but hardly the only one; though one could justifiably say the only decent POPULAR band this decade. There are hundreds of amazing new bands, they're just all "off the radar" so you probably haven't heard of any of them.

And that's the uphill battle that bands of the new millennium face: technology has so scattered, so diversified the way we hear music and the places we hear music that any decent '00s band has to literally shout to make themselves heard. In the old days, distribution was simple enough --- if you got radio airplay (and later, MTV airplay), and you could string together a couple of hits, then your name was made.

Not that easy now. Radio and MTV are only part of the equation for success now --- and even those have become somewhat obsolete in terms of the hitmaking machinery. Now you've got to be seen/heard on Youtube, on iTunes, you've got to get a prominent gig in the big festivals like Bonnaroo and Lollapalooza and Warped and Ozzfest...

So yeah, right now there's probably a TON of great bands that are completely under not only MY radar, but most everyone else's, too.

In a way, I'd even credit RB and GH with helping those kinds of bands immensely....if you can get a track or two on the music games, you've branded yourself a semi-permanent legacy and bought yourself exposure that's utterly invaluable in this environment.

[jsorge]

And that's the uphill battle that bands of the new millennium face: technology has so scattered, so diversified the way we hear music and the places we hear music that any decent '00s band has to literally shout to make themselves heard. In the old days, distribution was simple enough --- if you got radio airplay (and later, MTV airplay), and you could string together a couple of hits, then your name was made.

Not that easy now. Radio and MTV are only part of the equation for success now --- and even those have become somewhat obsolete in terms of the hitmaking machinery. Now you've got to be seen/heard on Youtube, on iTunes, you've got to get a prominent gig in the big festivals like Bonnaroo and Lollapalooza and Warped and Ozzfest...

So yeah, right now there's probably a TON of great bands that are completely under not only MY radar, but most everyone else's, too.

In a way, I'd even credit RB and GH with helping those kinds of bands immensely....if you can get a track or two on the music games, you've branded yourself a semi-permanent legacy and bought yourself exposure that's utterly invaluable in this environment.

I'm starting to get confused whether you're referring to a band being good/successful as being popular or having artistic integrity/originality. Unfortunately, I feel that in today's market it is much harder to get exposure if you are trying to keep a large degree of originality so it is nearly impossible to simultaneously good and insanely successful.

Part of the problem for me is that these good bands that supposedly exist don't even get the traditional exposure on TV, radio because it's all filled with formulaic crap. I figure that if more interesting bands were at least on the radio then I would have heard of them regardless of whether or not they're trying to keep their head above water on my computer.

I will agree that I have had additional exposure to music through Rock Band and have purchased music based on the tracks I have enjoyed through the game. The best example for me is Black Tide. Sure, at times their music can sound a little dated (done before), but at least it's something that I don't hear on the radio everyday and it's great to have a new album that in ways reminds me of one of the first four Metallica albums. It's also nice to see a band going back and putting their own spin on tried and tested sounds without feeling like they have to sound like all the other bands out there today.

As for festivals, one band off the top of my head that happens to be headlining often that I will use as an example is The Killers. They are definitely a popular band and have a lot of exposure, but I still don't see them as a premium act. They have a few decent songs, which I somewhat enjoy to listen to, but they have always seemed like a middle tiered band to me. My opinion is that the only reason they are considered a premium act is that there are no legitimate premium acts to demote them on the festival lineups besides the ones from 20-30 years ago who are on reunion/retirement avoidance tours.

I realize that my post has rambled on now and I'm not even sure if it totally relates to the post I had originally quoted. I also figure that there will be some that will completely disagree with my opinions. I don't care though, because it feels great to finally sufficiently communicate my thoughts on current state of the music industry. I look forward to your responses. =)

[zeldazeppelin]

I think that Ark storm and concerto moon could be considered classic Yngwie Malmsteen