Well, exactly and that's why I'm guessing that Strokes won't make it in. Just based on their current trajectory, I doubt that they will pull something super-fantastic out of their proverbial hats. Same with Interpol. I singled out the Strokes with my comment because of most of the bands mentioned I see them least likely to a)stay together and b)make any type of an impact record. Let's be honest though, none of of the bands that have put out 1-2 records have really proven enough at this juncture. Like you said its all spec, and my spec is no Strokes.

I could see Iron & Wine, if they ever do something other than re-package "Creek Drank The Cradle".

Fair enough, although I would disagree regarding their 'impact' because Is This It? was a fairly influential record. As much as Nirvana et al. spawned a huge glut of 'grunge-type' bands, they're responsible for quite a lot of immitable 'garage' bands. Yes, I realize they are hardly a garage band, but that didn't stop other bands from mocking their musical and fashion style. Who knows, they could put out steady, consistent records for the next 20 years and surprise everyone. Would anyone have pegged U2 as the band they are today back in 1981? I doubt it.

major label type's most likely.

radiohead
wilco (?uncle tupelo?)
white stripes

guys like that

bow. had madonna made it in? once she does, that'll open the gates to any non-performing performer out there. (if michael jackson hasn't already done so.)

Maybe not in 1981 (although "Boy" is a helluva lot more solid than the Strokes debut), but by 1985 (five year window), judging from the splash that Blood Red Sky and Unforgettable Fire made, a lot of folks would've pegged 'em.

Furthermore, garage rock has been around for more than 40 years. Don't be so hasty to credit the Strokes with doing something that's in any way "new". It's a fine, enjoyable record, but I don't consider it groundbreaking by any means.

The challenge is to find the artists that haven't made it to the "majors" yet. It wasn't too long ago that White Stripes were on Sympathy.

What gets Jack the nod is if he continues collaborating with others, a la the Loretta Lynn record.

those not on majors? good luck.

most of the pixies work (if not all?) is on an indie label. pavement.

I agree with Rabbit. Is This It? may have spawned imitators but the imitators by and large weren't very good and no scene on the scale of the Grunge scene ever developed or got national/international attention. I don't think Is This It? had a 1/10 of the cultural impact Nevermind did.

I would wager that Is This It? is their peak and think they as much as anyone seem the type of band that will fizzle out. I don't mean this as harshly as it probably sounds but I consider them to be the indie equivalent of a boy band in terms of shelf life. Their sloppy and drunken playing that has some charm when they're in their early 20's will wear thin as they age. For me it already has.

That said they are one of the best predictions made so far. Its not beyond belief that they could slide in similar to the Police if they release a couple of more popular albums. I just don't think they will do that though and strokes being among the best is more a criticism of other selections than an agreement with it.

I agree with your comments re: U2.

Strokes didn't invent anything new. But neither did Nirvana. Not saying I agree with strokes though. But groundbreaking is hardly an essential criteria for RnR HOF admission.

U2 were considered a "can't miss" right from the start. I remember reading a Rolling Stone feature on them before Boy was even released. That debut and October came as huge disappointments to the industry, but War set them on the right path as the new breed of arena rock.

Holy fuck. What did I say in my post? Did I say they or Nirvana were fucking groundbreaking?! I said they were influential in that the spawned imitators. I made a point of saying that The Strokes weren't doing 'garage' rock.



And I'm aware it's been around for 40 fucking years. Jesus, don't be so fucking pedantic, I didn't start listening to music in 2001 with the Strokes. And with all due respect to said opinions that you're tired of their sloppy drunken playing, fine don't listen. Lots of people still do and enjoy them. I'm sure there are lots of people who checked out after The Ramones debut and said the same type of thing. And before you add a snide comment, I'm not directly comparing the Strokes and the Ramones. It's an academic point about some fans fickle tastes.

As for the U2 supposition? I was 8 years old in 1980 and didn't read Rolling Stone. I didn't realize they were annoited the chosen ones so early, so my apologies. But if their first two albums were disappointments, I consider my original point to be valid.

Your original point is definitely valid, despite the fact you didn't read RS as an 8 year old. U2 were the "chosen ones" before their debut album was released - and, as I recall, the most recent band I can think of with the same kind of pre-debut RS hype is the Strokes. And when you think of the comparison, Room On Fire is their chronological equivalent to October, which means this new one is merely their War (and from the few songs I've heard off of it, it's probably gonna find them a larger audience). If the Strokes are in it for the long haul, they're still two albums away from their Joshua Tree - so there's still plenty of time for them to put together the kind of career that gets them lodged into the HoF.

Well, it won't SOUND anything like Joshua Tree, but IMO, this band keeps getting better. I think the main problem is that people want bands to go from say Alt country or Nirvana-bes to playing "found sounds and feedback" or prattling on about the alientaion of consumer culture...all in the span of 2-3 albums. Listen to the first 5 Stones rekkids..they barely write a song until 3 rekkids in. Fuck, THE BEATLES thought they were gonna get called for being OPEN Motown/Chuck Berry rip offs until after HELP!

Not every band needs to follow a trajectory from indie-boohoo band to playing with Baba Meier and prancing around on stage in tassle boots and/or a fucking McGruff costume.

In short, The Strokes sound keeps getting better, but not in a forced way, and if they keep it up, we'll still be talking about em in many years.

I stopped talking about them when I heard their album.

No, I tend to agree with the trajectory comment, and perhaps I was a bit hasty, to say that a band has to prove something with a first album. BUT--I think that based on that album, and the early leaks I've heard of the upcoming one, I would say they really aren't treading any new ground. Getting better proficient-wise is different than say, changing the way a generation listens to music. To sit here and argue one way or another on where they are going is moot. I would've never thought that Nirvana would've blown up upon hearing 'Bleach'. To me, while I like it, it was just standard punk rock. My point is, sorry dumpjack if I jumped on you, didn't mean to be a dick.