As frightening as many of us undoubtedly find the idea, the first decade of the 21st century is coming to a close. A whole lot has changed since the end of 1999. Technology has advanced with exponential speed. Our nation weathered and survived eight difficult years of Dick and George. MTV and VH1 left behind music and video hits in favor of 60-minute segments about the carpooling trials of Rev. Run.
Musically, we have seen many strange and exciting developments since the turn of the century. When thinking about the way that the world of music has changed in the last ten years, I start to wonder what will prove to be the significant sounds of the 2000s. We remember decades past perhaps best by their representative music, but is it too early to tell which songs of the past ten years will stand the test of time?
When I wonder what music will be remembered in years to come, I think in terms of two categories: artists and individual songs.
There have been great artists who have been stand-alone, but the majority of great musicians are considered significant because they go on to influence another generation of musicians.
Some artists have already proven to be influential within the past decade. The Strokes are a direct influence on the explosively successful sound of Kings of Leon. Amy Winehouse kicked off the revival of blue-eyed soul in Britain and the States. The electric-psychadelia of MGMT can be heard in artists from Passion Pit to Kid Cudi. It will be a long time, though, before we are able to see all the artists that lend a hand to the music of the future.
It is somewhat easier to judge what songs will last. Some songs are big because they are representative of the sound of a certain artist. In this case, the significance of the song is tied to the significance of the artist; it is difficult to tell if the song will have lasting impact until it is clear whether the artist will be important.
Some songs do stand on their own, independent of the sound of the artists. It's hard to separate these out. To do so, I often employ my "Beatles Test." This stems from a comment a friend made that he simply could not listen to Beatles covers. I could not disagree more. As significant as the Beatles studio albums are, I think much of their true genius lies in the fact that they wrote songs that could be covered by others — often in styles very different from the original recording — and still seem vibrant and relevant. These songs have their own independent greatness.
So, the Beatles Test amounts to this: can the song be separated from its original context? Using this logic, I can think of a few great songs of the last decade. Outkast's rollicking soul-hop ditty "Hey Ya!" (2003) has been re-imagined by many as a melancholy acoustic folk song, though still maintaining the original chords and melody. Rihanna's "Umbrella"(2008) is equally potent as an R&B anthem and in the pared-down acoustic cover by the likes of YouTube's Marie Digby. The same is true of Gnarls Barkley's neo-soul jam "Crazy" (2006) and the sparsely produced cover by Ray Lamontagne. Whatever your opinion of these tracks or covers, I am confident that these were not hits simply because they had the hip, now sound, or because they were well-produced. Their adaptability is a testament to their strength as songs.
It is probably too early to tell what music from the last 10 years will endure for years to come. A few artists, however, have shown themselves already to be very influential. Likewise, a few songs will likely join the ranks of the classics. Only time will tell.
--
Charles Laubacher is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. He can be reached at Charles.Laubacher@tufts.edu
