Who gets your vote?

dreamfactory313 said:

would i be trashed if i said justin timberlake?

purplegypsy said:

Im not interested in trashing anyone but I cant speak for the rest of the Orgers.

My vote goes to:

Pharrell Williams, probably the most prolific producer artist of the new millenium.

dreamfactory313 said:

Alicia Keys is pretty darn talented.

DiminutiveRocker said:

I hate to agree but dreamfactory313 is right. Pharrells sound was at least new (or timbalands) and he has written so many hits for so many artists now. Significant artists of the 80's would be pharrells mentor teddy riley, behind a few other people mind Shows how much better the 80's were LOL

Alicia just mainly bites vintage stevie. Fair enough. But I give more credit to justin then her.

all these people came out pre 2000.

thesexofit said:

Why does it pain you so to agree with me?

lilgish said:

I think its safe to say the Pharrell Williams emerged after 2000 even though he was behind the scenes as a producer before that. Alicia Keye's debut was released in 2001 and Justin's solo debut in 2002. I think we can make the case that these are significant artsist who have broken into the mainstream post 2000. Are they the most significant? Thats your call.

purplegypsy said:

Not by me but beware the Org Borg squad. Your assimilation is imminent.

dreamfactory313 said:

I hate pharrell, not u I hate him, and his beats. Just like people got sick of others cloning teddy riley's sound, Iam sick of pharrells or timbelands sound now.

lilgish said:

justin didn't really become "significant" in my eyes 'til he left N Sync. That was after 2000.

my *FAVORITE* artists to emerge since 2000 are probably miss kittin and peaches, but i don't know if i'd call them "significant". maybe they will be. or not.

The Strokes
Franz Ferdinand
The Arcade Fire
RES
India.Arie

Moonbeam said:

Sorry.

GangstaFam said:

oh, i think she's okay. i don't know how 'significant' she is in the bigger picture, though i guess if someone likes her, she's significant to that person.

The Shins, Iron and Wine, and the New Pornographers are the new acts I probably like the most, but they're not particularly innovative or ground-breaking, so they might not qualify as significant.

GangstaFam said:

What do you know?

i'll probably get cackled at, but a lot of the acts from the electro craze are, to me, pretty influential still - especially if they continue to evolve. i mentioned peaches and miss kittin, but also groups like chicks on speed, adult., and i am the world trade center, chilly gonzales - while in many cases very derivative of '80s new wave - has been the only music that has really jumped out at me and made me feel truly enthusiastic about new music and new artists.

the arcade fire.

Moonbeam said:

Not a damn thing.

JonSnow said:

Is it fair to say that Funeral is the early front runner for album of the decade? I'm not as enamored as some people are with this band, but there don't seem to be many other records that were as universally acclaimed. There's still 4 1/2 years to go, of course, but I don't think we've seen a nevermind or sott that critical consensus is forming around, unless I'm missing something really obvious (Outkast, maybe????).

damosuzuki said:

you know, i like the arcade fire tons more than i've liked all the other hyped-up bands of this decade (strokes, franz f., hot hot heat, interpol, blah blah etc.), but i have to admit: i don't get it.

it's really good music, don't get me wrong. but it doesn't punch me in the gut and in the heart, nor does it make my nostrils flare when i listen to it, nor do i have much desire to commit the lyrics to memory. it doesn't move me. i admire it, but it doesn't kick my ass. to be honest, i like the decemberists' latest album just as much, if not a little more, than the arcade fire. does anyone see them topping or even just maintaining their creative/critical high?

His debut album was released in 1999,but I would pick Eminem.Mr.Mathers unleashed his debut album right in the middle of the teen pop explosion.His dysfunctional subject matter mixed with his skills as a lyricist are undeniably significant.Eminem brought more than booty and bling to the rap game.And like it or not,Slim proved that white men can rap.

I think this guy is the answer:

JulesWindu said:

I would agree, although I do think it's a bit hard to gauge how "significant" somebody has been in a current 5-year period.

Anxiety said:

I completely agree with everything you said - I admire the album, but it's never become an obsession with me (and I love that Decemberist album too).

I just can't think of another album that's received as much acclaim - but maybe I'm just not thinking hard enough.

I can't think of one. Nothing's really dazzled me, to be honest.

I think it's a sign of desperation, though, that some people would consider Justin Timberlake or Alicia Keys "significant" artists. And Pharrell Williams is not really a producer in the classical sense - he is a DJ/mixer who recycles the same old shit, and who has little interest in real songcraft. Definitely not significant to me.
[Edited 6/27/05 19:50pm]

damosuzuki said:

"Is This It?" was considered the bees knees when it came out, but their star seems to have faded with the last album. It's hard to say how acclaimed or significant The Strokes will be a few years from now. Probably not very.

GangstaFam said:

Yeah, and I can see the same thing happening with Funeral. However, I do think The Strokes were pretty much painted into a corner stylistically the moment their album came out - they really didn't have anywhere to go after their debut. I think the Arcade Fire are multi-faceted enough to escape that problem - but that doesn't mean they will of course. They could wind up on the heap of "once-trendy-now-forgotten" bands pretty quickly.