Who would be the dominant Rock Band of the 2000's?

[88keys]

A friend and I were conversing about rock history and it seems like each decade had a band that dominated the genre for the decade up until the 2000s and then I just can't seem to think of anybody.

1960's The Beatles (obviously)
1970's Led Zeppelin
1980's Van Halen
1990's Metallica
2000's ????... Nickelback? (lol)

 

[TheSiege]

Tool
DMB
Blink
Linkin Park

 

[Ventanni]

My vote goes to Tool.

 

[Howard]

Why not just go by albums sold?

 

[vi edit]

2000's were weird. There wasn't any one overwhelming "style" that stood out as a representation of the decade. Pop music was more...uhhh...popular than ever. There was a lot of clone bands that all sounded the same. There was a bit of a retro-rock push with bands like White Stripes, Black Keys, Wolfmother, ect. Then you also had a bit of a folk rock vibe start to kick in at the end (Mumford and Sons and the like).

I don't know if there really was a "dominant" rock band.

 

[phucheneh]

It's pretty hard to not give the 60's to the Beatles. But none of those others are very concrete, becoming less-so as time moves on. Which is why it makes sense that you can't name anything the dominator of the decade, as far as legit rock music. And by that, I just mean 'not pop.'

...come to think...at the time, weren't the Beatles kind of...pop? I mean, maybe 'pop' didn't exist, but they kind of check all the boxes for a mainstream, radio-friendly tour de force.

People saying 'Tool' makes me laugh. Tool was better in the 90's. Hell, much like Metallica was better in the 80's.

And if Van Halen was truly king of the 80's, I think everyone that bought music in the 80's should get the fuck smacked out of them.

 

[tcG]

Dominate? There is no true hierarchy in art, friend.

 

[lxskllr]

It's pretty hard to not give the 60's to the Beatles. But none of those others are very concrete, becoming less-so as time moves on. Which is why it makes sense that you can't name anything the dominator of the decade, as far as legit rock music. And by that, I just mean 'not pop.'

...come to think...at the time, weren't the Beatles kind of...pop? I mean, maybe 'pop' didn't exist, but they kind of check all the boxes for a mainstream, radio-friendly tour de force.

People saying 'Tool' makes me laugh. Tool was better in the 90's. Hell, much like Metallica was better in the 80's.

And if Van Halen was truly king of the 80's, I think everyone that bought music in the 80's should get the fuck smacked out of them.

I agree. The Beatles owned the 60s. From trivial pop, to album art rock. They had appeal from teeny boppers, to stoners. I also agree with the rest of what you said. I think the Beatles were an anomaly, and the other decades aren't nearly as clearcut.

 

[twinrider1]

U2. I think they went down hill after WAR, but there's no disputing their success.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Why not just go by albums sold?

Why not just go by most pirated?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Commercially, it seems like the Foo Fighters are the most relevant surviving rock band. Artistically, I'd say Queens of the Stone Age.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

U2. I think they went down hill after WAR, but there's no disputing their success.

War was released in 1983.

Of course, Achtung Baby was massive and they've sold tons of albums all around, but they were not much of a 2000's band.

And if Van Halen was truly king of the 80's, I think everyone that bought music in the 80's should get the fuck smacked out of them.

I hope you're saying this on account of not enjoying the 80's Hagar albums because early Van Halen owns you.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Commercially, it seems like the Foo Fighters are the most relevant surviving rock band. Artistically, I'd say Queens of the Stone Age.

This, basically.

Although the 2000's were never strongly defined by any one genre or style. For rock, it was like the mash-up album was the go to thing (perhaps due to the "death of the album" AKA MP3 downloads/itunes/amazon)

 

[Crono]

There are so many subgenres (I don't even know them all) and bands rising during the digital age that it doesn't make a lot of sense to consider rock a single genre anymore. If you have to pick, though, it has to be Linkin Park or Coldplay, just looking at the activity throughout the decade, band popularity, album sales, concerts, etc. Whether you like them is a different story (I happen to) but it would be hard to argue for very many other bands.

 

[natto fire]

Commercially, it seems like the Foo Fighters are the most relevant surviving rock band. Artistically, I'd say Queens of the Stone Age.

QotSA and Desert Sessions are definitely way up there for me as far as musical style, whereas Foo Fighters have gotten a bit repetitive, or maybe just overplayed.

The tail end of the 2000s is when my musical tastes broadened by a significant amount, so I can't really pin it to one for me. I started out listening to NIN, Days of the New and pop rock on the radio, and ended the decade listening to Neko Case, Man Man, Tom Waits and the Fiery Furnaces, pretty much never listening to radio.

 

[drebo]

The 2000s were terrible for rock music.

It was the era of emo whiney rich kid rock. There was no creativity. Every solo was pentatonic minor, every drum track was generic, and bass players only knew how to play eighth notes. Fucking awful.

There was no good rock music in the 2000s.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Tenacious D.

 

[BudAshes]

90's was Nirvana
2000's Radiohead

 

[dennilfloss]

Nine Inch Nails, not commercially but in terms of legacy.

 

[Vaux]

Hmm. For the 90's, Nirvana could be, but they were only around until 94. How about Pearl Jam? Or Smashing Pumpkins? You could argue Guns N Roses, too.

Creed was huge in the early 2000's...Evanescence was big for a while. Those two would be the most popular bands that I liked in those years.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

As far as relevant for the longest period of time over the decade, I'm inclined to say Radiohead or the White Stripes. Maybe LCD Soundsystem if you go more indie scene. Then again, out of those White Stripes are really the only ones that can actually pass as rock imo. Maaaaaybe the Black Keys but they didn't really start getting big until like '06. It's really just easier to say rock is dead.

 

[twinrider1]

War was released in 1983.

It's one of my favorite albums. For me, they could only go down from there.

Of course, Achtung Baby was massive and they've sold tons of albums all around, but they were not much of a 2000's band...

In the 2000's...
Three albums, 26 million records, 15 Grammys, 3 ginormous tours, including the 1st and 5th top grossing tours of all time.

 

[Scotteq]

The 2000s were terrible for rock music.

It was the era of emo whiney rich kid rock. There was no creativity. Every solo was pentatonic minor, every drum track was generic, and bass players only knew how to play eighth notes. Fucking awful.

There was no good rock music in the 2000s.

Hey There!!! Let's not exaggerate to the point of absurdity. This isn't P&N, after all.

Bass players used Quarter notes too, you know... /stanceodominance

 

[Oyeve]

If Freddie was alive it would be queen.

 

[TangoJuliet]

According to this:

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-...ra-the-top-20-album-sellers-of-the-2000s.html

Yahoo has the top selling rock bands of the 2000s

1. The Beatles
2. Linkin Park
3. Creed
4. Nickleback
5. Metallica
6. Kid Rock

Metallica put out some crappy albums and still were #5. Creed and N-back...ugh.

I'd like to throw Green Day out there. Sure, they are more punk, punk/rock then straight rock. American Idiot is probably one of the best selling albums in the decade at 14 million and love it or hate it is a solid album....although its not even close to Dookie