the Naughties

ecoli

okay in this modern day and age it seems to me that there are not many legendary bands in the makin so i thought i would leave it to the people to say who they think will go down as the great bands of the 00s?

nyarlothothep

Imo The Darkness, The Mars Volta, Charlotte Hatherley and Dragonforce. For me they are great artists, shame The Darkness split but they're reforming as another band following Justins departure so that might be another band to add to the list. I wouldn't go so far as to call any of them legendary yet, but I really enjoy their work for this decade.

ecoli

wit the exception of dragonforce who are class i would disagree but this more bout bands that will be known as epic like GnR Led Zepplin Metallica Hendrix and even the Chilli s who u could say are still round but will be known for there emergence in the 90s

Creamy Goodness

for some reason i dislike the term "the noughties", just doesn't have the same ring as the seventie's/eightie's or nintie's

nyarlothothep

Cremo wrote: »

for some reason i dislike the term "the noughties", just doesn't have the same ring as the seventie's/eightie's or nintie's

yeah, I agree, should be called the naughts, noughties just sounds like some lame channel 4/bbc/celeb pundit coinage.

Royale with Cheese

There truly aren't many legendary bands in the making. There's a fair amount of shite coming out of the British music scene at the moment. I mean the Libertines are considered legendary by some deranged people. Actually nearly all bands that have come out of England in the past 7 years, who's name starts with the, are total shite, yet nme will try and convince everybody these bands are all genius.

JC 2K3

Well, Radiohead obviously. Probably Muse also, but to a much lesser extent. The Mars Volta probably aren't big enough to be remembered by many, though they've also made some good music in this decade(if a bit over pretentious at times).

The Arctic Monkeys, the Libertines etc. will all be remembered too and will be legendary in the minds of many, though personally I disagree.

Melion

Muse
The Strokes
The Libertines

John

The Beatles

I'm going to go with the strokes, and the klaxons. Love them

MonsieurD

I think if there were "GREAT" bands in the 2000's then we wouldn't be finding it so difficult to agree. Don't get me wrong there are "great" bands today (e.g Radiohead) but not in the league of the 60's , 70's. I think they were times when music was really seen to make a difference to society. That's not the case anymore. Pity! Also, the 2000's has seen people become convinced that the way into the music industry is thru' the boy/girl bands and the X-Factor w**kers. These manufactured twats have hijacked the airwaves for years.

As each decade passes, the number of "GREAT" bands emerging is growing less (I think).

Creamy Goodness

MonsieurD wrote: »

As each decade passes, the number of "GREAT" bands emerging is growing less (I think).

never a falser statement in my books.

if you just listen to the radio/tv then you're going to get the majority crap that's pushed out there.

80's and 90's had great music in tv and radio and in the charts but that has diminished.

you have to look harder and further for true greatness.

John

Sigur Rós will be remembered. They're the sort of band who is popular but not mega mega mega huge in their day but will have a knock on effect in years to come.

Xavi6

Technically Muse are a 90s band having released Showbiz in 99 but they'd be the standout one.

Arctic Monkeys and The Killers will definitely be remembered. Bands such as Biffy Clyro should be remembered but probably won't.

Timans

The Strokes? Great? Paaaah.

Arctic Monkeys are a good band and are probably one of the better bands out know.

I think people miss the point of these sort of discussions and just talk about bands they LIKE as opposed to bands they feel will have legendary status in the future. Yes, I like the Arctic Monkeys a lot, but I can't see them having the knock effect as bands such as Zeppelin, The Who, Nirvana (whether you like them or not).

Melion

Timans wrote: »

The Strokes? Great? Paaaah.

Arctic Monkeys are a good band and are probably one of the better bands out know.

I think people miss the point of these sort of discussions and just talk about bands they LIKE as opposed to bands they feel will have legendary status in the future. Yes, I like the Arctic Monkeys a lot, but I can't see them having the knock effect as bands such as Zeppelin, The Who, Nirvana (whether you like them or not).

The Strokes changed music when they released their debut album IMO. They brought back great rock music, they woke up the New York scene again. I dont think The Libertines would be around if not for them, if the Libs werent around it would have a huge knock on effect on the number of good bands around today.

Dr Lektroluv

I'd say

Muse
Eminem
Outkast
Daft Punk
The Strokes
Kings of Leon

The reason I'd put Eminem, Outkast & Daft Punk in there is this wasn't a very rock-dominated decade like the 60s, 70s and 80s and will probably (and unfortunately) be remembered more for hip-hop. For example - whether you like Eminem or not, his popularity over the past 7-8 years is unquestionable and there's no doubt he will be remembered when people think of this decade.

People saying "Mars Volta, Biffy Clyro" etc are confusing artists that they like with artists that will be actually remembered and listened to in 40 years. I mean I don't even know a single song from either of those 2 mentioned, would people have been able to say the same in the 60's about the beatles, or the who?

JC 2K3

Melion wrote: »

The Strokes changed music when they released their debut album IMO. They brought back great rock music, they woke up the New York scene again.

lol. How is bringing something back changing music?

Considering New York produced bands as innovative as The Velvet Underground and was the home of movements as "out there" as No Wave, if a band as bland as The Strokes are to be accredited with being at the forefront of the New York music scene these days, it can hardly be said that they "woke up the New York scene" but rather that they inspired musical regression.

The Scientician

It's too early to say but I reckon an act like LCD Soundsystem might be remembered as a legendary band of the '00s. Maybe even one of the big hip-hop producers as well, Timbaland, Neptunes et al. Their sound is all over this decade.

Creamy Goodness

Xavi6 wrote: »

Biffy Clyro should be remembered but probably won't.

biffy will be remembered, but for the wrong reasons.

DadaKopf

First of all: who knows?

Second of all: who cares?

Whoever is remembed, it won't be down to how popular, amazing, groundbreaking or revolutionary they were.

Whoever is remembered will be down to what bands music journalists decide to champion. They're the ones who form people's opinions; IMHO (with some exceptions), the best are often the ones who are remembered by the few who form their own opinions.

Pigman II

Cremo wrote: »

for some reason i dislike the term "the noughties", just doesn't have the same ring as the seventie's/eightie's or nintie's

Agreed. We should call now the ja-danketies.

John

JC 2K3 wrote: »

lol. How is bringing something back changing music?

Considering New York produced bands as innovative as The Velvet Underground and was the home of movements as "out there" as No Wave, if a band as bland as The Strokes are to be accredited with being at the forefront of the New York music scene these days, it can hardly be said that they "woke up the New York scene" but rather that they inspired musical regression.

QFT!

The Strokes are a tribute band to an aesthetic (vintage clothing, poppy post-punk music, a typically rock and roll swagger) but are in no way a breath of fresh air or a kick up the arse to music. The New York scene is alive and well but sounds nothing like The Strokes.

lordgoat

John wrote: »

QFT!

The Strokes are a tribute band to an aesthetic (vintage clothing, poppy post-punk music, a typically rock and roll swagger) but are in no way a breath of fresh air or a kick up the arse to music. The New York scene is alive and well but sounds nothing like The Strokes.

Ya, um what john said. I was going to post more but i think you've covered it.

nyarlothothep

Dr Lektroluv wrote: »

I'd say

Muse
Eminem
Outkast
Daft Punk
The Strokes
Kings of Leon

The reason I'd put Eminem, Outkast & Daft Punk in there is this wasn't a very rock-dominated decade like the 60s, 70s and 80s and will probably (and unfortunately) be remembered more for hip-hop. For example - whether you like Eminem or not, his popularity over the past 7-8 years is unquestionable and there's no doubt he will be remembered when people think of this decade.

People saying "Mars Volta, Biffy Clyro" etc are confusing artists that they like with artists that will be actually remembered and listened to in 40 years. I mean I don't even know a single song from either of those 2 mentioned, would people have been able to say the same in the 60's about the beatles, or the who?

Nick Drake didn't have mainstream success in in the late 60s/early 70s but now he's got a sizeable fan base. Thats around 40 years on.

nyarlothothep

just to add, this decade has been very poor for music/films/culture in general imo. The 90s for me, were much better with artists like Radiohead, NIN, Nirvana, Pulp, Portishead, MC Hammer etc, films like Pulp Fiction, 12 Monkeys, Desperado and Scream and tv shows like The Simpsons (when they were good and got started) The X Files, and Bottom. Overall I just liked the 90s more. This decade has just been an imitation of the 80s and while the 80s at least had its own identity and some great films, this decade has no identity of its own beyond being an 80s rehash. Music has become more about image and haircuts rather than about the music, its become very conservative in that sense. I think that there will be a backlash to whats around now, probably around 2009/10 and I look forward to it. Roll on the 90s appreciation decade!

Full.Duck

Not too many great bands of the the 00's, but just listen to marx volta, one of the greatest bands of all time, imo. But dont think they will be remembered, to much commercial music around, plus peoples music tastes range very differently from years ago when all that was really around was rock. There are many great bands, just not going to be stadium fillers.

whatawaster

The Strokes
The Libertines
The White Stripes

whatawaster

nyarlothothep wrote: »

just to add, this decade has been very poor for music/films/culture in general imo. The 90s for me, were much better with artists like Radiohead, NIN, Nirvana, Pulp, Portishead, MC Hammer etc, films like Pulp Fiction, 12 Monkeys, Desperado and Scream and tv shows like The Simpsons (when they were good and got started) The X Files, and Bottom. Overall I just liked the 90s more. This decade has just been an imitation of the 80s and while the 80s at least had its own identity and some great films, this decade has no identity of its own beyond being an 80s rehash. Music has become more about image and haircuts rather than about the music, its become very conservative in that sense. I think that there will be a backlash to whats around now, probably around 2009/10 and I look forward to it. Roll on the 90s appreciation decade!

Bottom? I very much hope that's not what the 90's are remembered for.
This decade has Curb Your Enthusiasm, Arrested Development, and the greatest TV show ever made in The Office.

grumpytrousers

I'd think that there's very little chance of the present decade producing a raft of artists/bands that will be described as 'decade defining' in the sense that, say, the Beatles, The Stones, Bowie, Queen, Blondie, The Clash, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Oasis etc

That list there isn't a list of 'personal favourites' but they ARE the kind of acts that in 30 years time, you could be shown a picture of them and go 'oh aye, that's so-and-so'.

It's due to the changing nature of media that this is the case; I've not a doubt in the world that a lot of the bands mentioned heretofore are a sod of a lot more inventive than any of the 'legends' i've described, but they've not had the cultural impact, and frankly won't. By Cultural Impact I mean, the front of Time Magazine, the complete ubiquity associated with most of them, y'know.

the 'market' (a word which i try and use in as uncommercial a sense as i can) is at a stage where it's so fragmented that we won't see, in the conventional sense, the production of legends in the same way...but maybe that's a good thing; if nothing else, it'll mean a f*cks sight less mega-reunion tours troubling the residents of the environs of Croke Park in 30 years time....:D

Karl Hungus

nyarlothothep wrote: »

just to add, this decade has been very poor for music/films/culture in general imo. The 90s for me, were much better with artists like Radiohead, NIN, Nirvana, Pulp, Portishead, MC Hammer etc, films like Pulp Fiction, 12 Monkeys, Desperado and Scream and tv shows like The Simpsons (when they were good and got started) The X Files, and Bottom. Overall I just liked the 90s more. This decade has just been an imitation of the 80s and while the 80s at least had its own identity and some great films, this decade has no identity of its own beyond being an 80s rehash. Music has become more about image and haircuts rather than about the music, its become very conservative in that sense. I think that there will be a backlash to whats around now, probably around 2009/10 and I look forward to it. Roll on the 90s appreciation decade!

Bollocks!

As far as film goes, the 00's have been fantastic. Memento, Spirited Away, The Prestige, Batman Begins, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Pan's Labyrinth, Downfall, Oldboy, V For Vendetta, Mulholland Drive, Hot Fuzz, Shaun Of The Dead, Casino Royale, Children Of Men, and so many more it minds the boggle!

I'm not going to say it's been better or worse than any other decade, but on the whole, good film makers have never stopped making good films.

And it's likewise with music. I never pine for "The good old days" because there is rarely a shortage of great music being made, it just goes under the radar. I think that people who often complain about there being a lack of good music these days are just too lazy to look around and listen to new things, they want something to just land in their laps.

ecoli

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Bollocks!

And it's likewise with music. I never pine for "The good old days" because there is rarely a shortage of great music being made, it just goes under the radar. I think that people who often complain about there being a lack of good music these days are just too lazy to look around and listen to new things, they want something to just land in their laps.

i can agree there have been some great bands to come thru for instance there is the birth of indy so to speak but i dont feel that this generation has been one that will produce mainstream "legends"

in terms of tv shows as was earlier spoke about i feel that there has been a revival that will bridge the gap created by the 90s such as prison break 24 lost

Mr Alan

KINGS OF LEON and RYAN ADAMS

enough said.

Pigman II

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Bollocks!

Ah leave the guy alone Karl. From reading his post I'd wager he's in his late 20's or hitting 30 and just going thru a case of the Nostalgias.

grumpytrousers

ecoli wrote: »

i can agree there have been some great bands to come thru for instance there is the birth of indy so to speak but i dont feel that this generation has been one that will produce mainstream "legends"

in terms of tv shows as was earlier spoke about i feel that there has been a revival that will bridge the gap created by the 90s such as prison break 24 lost

see, and this is NOT a personal comment directed at you ecoli, this is precisely the kind of bollocksology that really gets on my wick...

"the birth of indy", by which i trust you mean 'indie'...Indie's been bloody well with us since god knows; i guess when the first independent record label was set up. It became a tag (as far as i was aware) in or around the early 80's when you had the Smiths on Rough Trade, The Cure on Fiction and Depeche Mode on Mute records.

It's only recently that 'Indie' has suddenly morphed into a byword for 'scruffy lads playing guitars noisily'...Christ almighty...that's nothing new! Nearly all of the bands that would be described as 'indie' are on major labels, altho' the majors do tend to set up mini-labels so it doesn't immediately look like another 'Universal Music' release; this trend started, i think, in the 90's when EMI set up 'Food records' so Blur could look cool and still rake the dosh in for the lads at Manchester Square...

Karl Hungus

ecoli wrote: »

but i dont feel that this generation has been one that will produce mainstream "legends"

I don't see why not? Who knows what people'll be thinking of as legendary in the years to come.

Pigman II wrote: »

Ah leave the guy alone Karl. From reading his post I'd wager he's in his late 20's or hitting 30 and just going thru a case of the Nostalgias.

Sorry, I tend to rant, especially about the whole lack of good films lately... There's been loads! Open your eyes!

Sorry, did it again there...

nyarlothothep

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Bollocks!

As far as film goes, the 00's have been fantastic. Memento, Spirited Away, The Prestige, Batman Begins, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Pan's Labyrinth, Downfall, Oldboy, V For Vendetta, Mulholland Drive, Hot Fuzz, Shaun Of The Dead, Casino Royale, Children Of Men, and so many more it minds the boggle!

I'm not going to say it's been better or worse than any other decade, but on the whole, good film makers have never stopped making good films.

And it's likewise with music. I never pine for "The good old days" because there is rarely a shortage of great music being made, it just goes under the radar. I think that people who often complain about there being a lack of good music these days are just too lazy to look around and listen to new things, they want something to just land in their laps.

nah, most of the films and tv produced this decade have just been meh for me with the exceptions of American Psycho which come close to being the best film ever made and Spaced. Same for music, most of it this decade leaves me cold. Ok and Shaun of the Dead, Oldboy, Team America and Pans Labyrinth are good films but a lot of naughts films don't interest me.

SEPT 23 1989

Commercial Hip-hop/rnb Garbage Has Destroyed And Polluted Music Its Is The Cocaine Of This Age Of Music Rotting The Minds Killing The Love Years Ago You Picked Up A Guitar And Played Now Its Fake Gold Fake Gangsters And Treating Woman Like Slags And Writing About Nothing Of Any Relevance To Anything In The Real World
When Hip Hop First Hit It Was Fantastic Fresh Music With A Message Not This Crap Thats Released Now Where Is The New Punk Type Era To Put This Crap To The Sword?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

nyarlothothep wrote: »

nah, most of the films and tv produced this decade have just been meh for me with the exceptions of American Psycho which come close to being the best film ever made and Spaced. Same for music, most of it this decade leaves me cold.

that's got more to do with you than the naughties..

nyarlothothep

Mordeth wrote: »

that's got more to do with you than the naughties..

Ive been saying all along in my opinion I don't like whats on offer in the naughts.

BaZmO*

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Ive been saying all along in my opinion I don't like whats on offer in the naughts.

Your opinions on this thread remind me of the saying, "If you complain about being bored all the time you're a boring person"

There have been tonnes of great music and movies released over the last decade, you just need to look for some. And it's never been easier to access all this wealth of talent. Granted there's a lot of thrash out there too but that has always been the case. The mind just has a great knack of filtering out all the chaff from the past.

As for who'll have legendary status in years to come I'll have to agree with John.

John wrote:

Sigur Rós will be remembered. They're the sort of band who is popular but not mega mega mega huge in their day but will have a knock on effect in years to come.

Inspiring band.

nyarlothothep

BaZmO* wrote: »

Your opinions on this thread remind me of the saying, "If you complain about being bored all the time you're a boring person"

There have been tonnes of great music and movies released over the last decade, you just need to look for some. And it's never been easier to access all this wealth of talent. Granted there's a lot of thrash out there too but that has always been the case. The mind just has a great knack of filtering out all the chaff from the past.

As for who'll have legendary status in years to come I'll have to agree with John.


Inspiring band.

Making personal remarks doesn't follow just because I don't agree with you.

BaZmO*

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Making personal remarks doesn't follow just because I don't agree with you.

Personal remarks? :rolleyes:

gustavo

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Commercial Hip-hop/rnb Garbage Has Destroyed And Polluted Music Its Is The Cocaine Of This Age Of Music Rotting The Minds Killing The Love Years Ago You Picked Up A Guitar And Played Now Its Fake Gold Fake Gangsters And Treating Woman Like Slags And Writing About Nothing Of Any Relevance To Anything In The Real World
When Hip Hop First Hit It Was Fantastic Fresh Music With A Message Not This Crap Thats Released Now Where Is The New Punk Type Era To Put This Crap To The Sword?

you know what , ordinarily I wouldnt agree with that statement , but you typing every word with capital letters really swayed me so , Well Done You!

lordgoat

gustavo wrote: »

you know what , ordinarily I wouldnt agree with that statement , but you typing every word with capital letters really swayed me so , Well Done You!

Most useless post ever?? He makes a valid point regardless of his typing. Why woulf you normally disagree with him? Do you actually think that commercial hip hop has any worth? Feel free to enlighten us... Or did you just want to make an empty statement??

grumpytrousers

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I don't see why not? Who knows what people'll be thinking of as legendary in the years to come.

Well, here's a vague stab at 'legendary' - record an album of three minute sloppy but good pop songs in 1963 and by 1966 have picked up MBE's, made two motion pictures, released 5 or six albums, continue to tour almost all of that time AND put the wheels on the UK side of the psychadelic bandwagon.

okay - so in a way using the Beatles as any kind of yardstick on a music forum can be somewhat akin to Godwins law, but d'you see what i mean.

I'm not dissing current music, but there's nobody - NOBODY - doing that kind of thing nowadays. And that's what i interpret what the OP means by legendary. Maybe the word 'iconic' would be better; there doesn't appear - right now - to be a band or an act that has exemplified the 'sound' of this decade.

That's not to say that this decade won't produce 'legendary' acts, but they'll be smaller legends, just as there are so many more niches in which one can be top dog but still relatively unknown; don't get me wrong, it's not the music that's wrong at all...but the impact that present day acts till have on the consciousness of the greater general public (not musos, in other words:D) is significantly lesser as we move away from the twentieth century.

Karl Hungus

grumpytrousers wrote: »

Well, here's a vague stab at 'legendary' - record an album of three minute sloppy but good pop songs in 1963 and by 1966 have picked up MBE's, made two motion pictures, released 5 or six albums, continue to tour almost all of that time AND put the wheels on the UK side of the psychadelic bandwagon.

okay - so in a way using the Beatles as any kind of yardstick on a music forum can be somewhat akin to Godwins law, but d'you see what i mean.

I'm not dissing current music, but there's nobody - NOBODY - doing that kind of thing nowadays. And that's what i interpret what the OP means by legendary. Maybe the word 'iconic' would be better; there doesn't appear - right now - to be a band or an act that has exemplified the 'sound' of this decade.

That's not to say that this decade won't produce 'legendary' acts, but they'll be smaller legends, just as there are so many more niches in which one can be top dog but still relatively unknown; don't get me wrong, it's not the music that's wrong at all...but the impact that present day acts till have on the consciousness of the greater general public (not musos, in other words:D) is significantly lesser as we move away from the twentieth century.

Hmm...

I don't think that many bands can live up to that kind of legendary status at all, if we're talking The Beatles, there's maybe only Elvis who's as comparitively legendary.

Maybe this is a good thing though? Perhaps people are just exposed to more music these days, and don't devote their entire musical enjoyment to just one artist? I mean, the kind of people obsessed with Elvis are just sad, in my view (Not talking about any regular fans mind you, nothing wrong with the guy's music at all, just those crazy "Church Of Elvis" types) and that kind of fandom is perhaps something we could do without in this day and age?

I did kinda get the wrong impression with your thread, thinking it was about no good music being made lately, but you make an interesting enough point, and I do kinda agree that perhaps bands today wouldn't be legendary in the same way, but definitely think that it could be a good thing.

Personally, I'd like to think of a band as legendary more so because of what they themselves have done, rather than how fanatic their fans are. I'd certainly count The Beatles as legendary simply because of how influencial they were. Today, I'd consider (For example) Devin Townsend a legend, because in about a decade he's accomplished so much with an astonishing amount of albums, either with Strapping Young Lad, The Devin Townsend Band, Devlab or his crazy Ziltoid project (Think Jeff Wayne's War Of The Worlds crossed with tongue in cheek Heavy Metal), or anything else he's done, he's just come out with so many astonishingly good, vastly different and original works.

Anywho, I think there's legends, but in different (And in some ways, better) ways.

grumpytrousers

actually karl, it was only last night watching telly that it sorta dawned on me of the two different kinds of legends...i mean, while the beatles were doing their latter facial hair things and acquiring 'legend' status, you had the Velvet Underground doing *their* thang and becoming legends in their own little way.

what we'll get more of is more 'velvet underground' style legends now; in other words that when people come to look at, i think, this decades music there won't be, that many readily identifiable globe-straddling behemoth stadium-filling bands people can name off. There WILL be plenty of bands who deserve to be that, i've no doubt, but not many will make it to the point marked 'era defining' cos they just won't have had the cultural impact.

Again, at the risk of overstating my case, this isn't a reflection on the music that is produced today; in the sixties/seventies and most of the eighties there were very limited outlets for music and so if a band made it big on one, they were everywhere. NOWADAYS, you hit channel 340 on your sky box and you can go how far with different niche channels...and that's before hitting digital radio, lastfm and the other myriad of ways music gets out there to an (admittedly more fragmented) audience.

and i agree with you about the amount of legends about today that you name (not that i know any of 'em , but your word is as good as the next mans!), but like i say, they're 'secret legends'; with his usual flipping foresight, Bob Dylan said once something along the lines of "fame comes too quickly these days. Some people, Leonard Cohen, Paul Brady, Lou Reed have it down right. Secret Heroes"

He said that, mind you, in 1991 if not earlier, but i think he had a point. We've the same thing today, except that fame isn't coming to a lot of current innovators at all, and the rest of us are, sadly, missing out!

gustavo

lordgoat wrote: »

Most useless post ever?? He makes a valid point regardless of his typing. Why woulf you normally disagree with him? Do you actually think that commercial hip hop has any worth? Feel free to enlighten us... Or did you just want to make an empty statement??

that bit

Lands Leaving

Thing is, when we look back in say twenty years at this decade, there will be bands who we say in the future were legendary now. Not sure who, but legendary is an adjective applied to bands when we look back on them. Legends take time to develop. The only problem now is that the trashy crap has kind of taken over, and there isn't an alternative sound per se, like punk, brit pop, rock and roll, etc, that people have gotten into collectively. If I mention any band of the noughties (hate that word!!) most people will disagree that they can be legendary.

Case in point, my money would be on bloc party and the arctic monkeys (ps I hate the arctic monkeys, but they will be looked back on as one of the big bands of this era.) and maybe coldplay (hate them too, but therein lies my point)

Any other ideas what bands might become 'legendary'?

BaZmO*

Lands Leaving wrote: »

bloc party

Bloc Party will never ever ever ever be considered legendary ever!