<new band> is the 21st century <old band>

SinisterMinisterX

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
...and tell us why!

Foo Fighters are the 21st century Led Zeppelin.
The band of mythic stature, Page/Grohl standing as the bulwark against synthetic disco/pop crap. The band that seems to do no wrong, even when their stuff isn't actually always that great. Known for a deliberate diversity of style across their records. Still cool enough for the hipsters.

Red Hot Chili Peppers are the 21st century Rolling Stones.
Loads of hits under their belt, and usually great live. On a hot night, the Greatest Rock And Roll Band in the World. A band with the reputation: "love 'em or hate 'em, you have to see them live once." The first guitarist (Jones/Slovak) set the tone for the band. The second guitarist (Taylor/Frusciante) was the best songwriter. The current guitarist (Wood/Klinghoffer) is good enough, but we all know what's missing.

Bruno Mars is the 21st century Michael Jackson.
This one's pretty obvious. Singer, dancer, insanely multitalented, one of the biggest selling artists in the world.

Taylor Swift is the 21st century Whitney Houston.
Distinguished by a relatively squeaky-clean image, compared to other female popstars of the day. Biggest selling female artist in the world for a time. If Swift gets into the coke someday, the circle will be complete.

Your turn.
 
Bruno Mars is a homeless man's Michael Jackson at best. He's yet to come up with a song that impressed me, MJ came up with hit after hit and he wrote a lot of them himself. If there's a new artist that could compare to Michael Jackson, it's Justin Timberlake, but he isn't a songwriter.

Whitney Houston was a performer while Taylor Swift's calling card is her songwriting. Can't see the comparison. I can't stand Whitney Houston's style while Taylor Swift has some songs that are guilty pleasures. She's pretty, too, which helps.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
.
Red Hot Chili Peppers are the 21st century Rolling Stones.
Click to expand...
Blasphemer!

I also disagree with equating Foo Fighters to Led Zeppelin. The Foos' music, while tolerable, is often rather boring - and until In Through the Out Door, the mighty Zep were never boring. The Foo Fighters strike me more as a 21st century Foreigner.

I would say that Jack White is the 21st century Jimmy Page. Deeply rooted in the blues and traditional arrangements, not as technically gifted but arguably more creative, Jack White always seems to surprise and entertain, whether in the White Stripes, as a solo artist, or any of his various side projects. And "Seven Nation Army" is this century's "Whole Lotta Love" -- an instantly recognizable riff with wide crossover appeal.

The Flash said:
She's pretty, too, which helps.
Click to expand...
In her youth, Whitney Houston was cover-model gorgeous. Taylor doesn't get the edge on looks. The real difference is that Whitney had her roots in R&B, Taylor started in country. Taylor seems more like a 21st century Shania Twain.

I've heard Muse called the 21st century Queen (or Radiohead). I can see the comparisons, as early Muse sounds a lot like early Radiohead, and at times Muse matches the bombast and camp that made Queen famous. But Muse really is a pale imitation of both. I like Muse, but not nearly as much as Queen or early (pre-Kid A) Radiohead.
 
Last edited:
I quite like Muse, but I'm always surprised they're as big as they are. To me, they're the slightly quirky band next door, definitely not near-legends with enormous presence like Queen. I can see the comparison between Muse and Radiohead much more so than either to Queen.

How about Lady Gaga is the 21st century Madonna. A little bit of mild controversy, a certain amount of not-giving-a-shit, and very much treading her own path. Neither are out of the standard mainstream mould. Britney was hailed as a new Madonna by some, but I don't see it....too formulaic.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
In her youth, Whitney Houston was cover-model gorgeous. Taylor doesn't get the edge on looks.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a comparison of their looks, just pointing out what I felt about Taylor Swift.

Brigantium said:
How about Lady Gaga is the 21st century Madonna. A little bit of mild controversy, a certain amount of not-giving-a-shit, and very much treading her own path. Neither are out of the standard mainstream mould. Britney was hailed as a new Madonna by some, but I don't see it....too formulaic.
Click to expand...

Agreed on this one. It's not that Britney was too formulaic, she just wasn't crazy enough to be next Madonna. As an entertainer I mean, she probably did the craziest stuff in pop has ever seen but they were a part of her personal life. Britney's prime years were possibly a bigger act than Madonna and Lady Gaga were, so she became more of her own thing as years went by.
 
Last edited:
Muse is the 21st century RadioQueen.
They are not enough like either band on their own, but they are very much the sum of them both.

Chris Cornell is the 21st century Robert Plant.
A love of soaring, screeching highs and bluesy lows, albums with hard rock bands and later albums with more of a soulful/folky edge.

SinisterMinisterX said:
Red Hot Chili Peppers are the 21st century Rolling Stones.
Click to expand...

A band that is far more talented than their lead singer, who generally sounds quirky on record and like absolute dogshit in a live setting? I guess that's pretty true.

Brigantium said:
How about Lady Gaga is the 21st century Madonna. A little bit of mild controversy, a certain amount of not-giving-a-shit, and very much treading her own path. Neither are out of the standard mainstream mould. Britney was hailed as a new Madonna by some, but I don't see it....too formulaic.
Click to expand...

This is incredibly accurate.
 
Brigantium said:
How about Lady Gaga is the 21st century Madonna. A little bit of mild controversy, a certain amount of not-giving-a-shit, and very much treading her own path. Neither are out of the standard mainstream mould. Britney was hailed as a new Madonna by some, but I don't see it....too formulaic.
Click to expand...
Only thing I agree with in this thread (so far) :ok:
 
Nickelback is the 21st century Foreigner.
A widely-derided band whose first single was good, but the rest are all the same. A band with an inexplicable string of hit singles that that just won't go away, and epitomizes the worst of corporate rock for its time.

Note: if you like Foreigner, odds are the above works for you with Journey instead. Me, I'm a Journey guy. :bigsmile:
 
I thought the Taylor Swift -Shania Twain comparison was pretty spot on. At least until Taylor went full pop with her latest album.

Bruno Mars is a cheap imitation of MJ.

Foo Fighters are too MTV/pop hook orientated to be compared to Zeppelin.....

Chili Peppers started something great in the 90s...then crashed and burned.
 
Last edited:
SinisterMinisterX said:
Nickelback is the 21st century Foreigner.
A widely-derided band whose first single was good, but the rest are all the same. A band with an inexplicable string of hit singles that that just won't go away, and epitomizes the worst of corporate rock for its time.

Note: if you like Foreigner, odds are the above works for you with Journey instead. Me, I'm a Journey guy. :bigsmile:
Click to expand...

I think that's pretty apt. I mean, I dig some Foreigner tunes, but they are mostly just remembered as a joke (even if you used to like 'em back in the day). Nickelback has already succumbed to the same fate.
 
Foreigner and Journey are MUCH better than Nickelback, IMHO. Were they lame and cheesy at times? Absolutely. But at least they came up with many good songs.
 
Or maybe bands like Nickelback and Creed (they started around the same time, and sound very alike) are our times Bad Company.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top