That's highly unlikely if you ask me, and one need only look at the time of the British Invasion for evidence. After all, the Jonas Brothers are a strung-together Disney band, not unlike the pop bands rounded up and put on-stage by eager industry aficionados in the 1960s. Such bands, as we now know, were one-hit wonders. That's what made the Beatles, and the British Invasion by extension, so important: the American rock 'n' roll industry was failing because all the greats of the last decade were dying or otherwise over the hump and the industry was plopping all these flavor-of-the-weak groups in to replace them. Luckily, the Brits pumped some much needed juice back into the genre.
Well I think first of all, you wouldn't be able to recognize the Beatles of any generation until well after the fact. That said, I honest to God think it's Lady Gaga. Pop music as art rather than a money-maker. Many music industry folks will tell you that Lady Gaga is like a David Bowie. A pop star by choice, not by being manufactured. Pushing the envelope.
I would agree with you since I've heard that comparison made too, but I think it's a false comparison. This comic sums up my feelings on Lady GaGa (last panel, obviously):
I was listening to The Beatles in my car on the way home tonight, and finally found the answer to this thread. No one. No one has, and most likely no one ever will live up to the Beatles, and I think comparing any other band to the Beatles is doing an injustice to The Beatles. Bands have come close, but you have to look to when before any of us were born. Bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones come close, but I don't think anything since the end of the 70s is worthy of being compared to The Beatles.
Lady Gaga is NOT this generation's Beatles'. The Beatles had depth, emotion and musical talent behind their art. Lady Gaga may be talented in that she can create a catchy dance-pop song, but her shock antics turn her into a female Marilyn Manson; trying too hard to be edgy and innovative, all for attention. If anything Lady Gaga is probably this generation's Madonna, but comparing her to the most influential band in music history is, in my opinion, blasphemous. In addition, I doubt she has a career that lives up to the longevity of Madonna's. I think Oasis were The Beatles of the 90s, but haven't had enough success in the 2000s to sustain that. U2 may be up there too, in terms of reverence and world relevance. But there will only ever be one Beatles: the rest are runners-up.
Lady Gaga I agree, is this generations Madonna. Lady Gaga I disagree, with this generation's Beatles. Beatles was a band to begin with, Lady Gaga is a solo artist.
It's Radiohead. They're great, and they're British. Hippies love Brits. In terms of worldwide impact, and the one that really belongs to this generation (2000's), it's Linkin Park. They really make use of technology in both visual and sonic media. They use hip-hop, pop, alt. rock, electronica, industrial and other genres popular to our generation and meld it into an edible, musical combination for EVERYONE. Their music has depth; the guys have depth both musically and artistically. Everyone hates them, and everyone loves them. They're not a pop rock mainstream band, they aren't also a hippie band. But they're not just big in the US, in Europe or in Japan, they're a hit everywhere. Just try to take a look at the comments on their Facebook page. And also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydipsdSYeCQ Just give LP a decade or more, then they'll get the credit that they deserve.
Interesting, I've heard of these guys but never heard them. What are they like? @cloudscream: That's exactly my point, exactly. The Beatles were a great band because they innovated in terms of pop and rock, they pushed the envelope in terms even of simply the popular song, they experimented with the production of sound...they were just all-around pioneers of music. Only time will tell if Linkin Park can experiment and innovate on a comparable scale, but if ATS is their Rubber Soul, I can't wait for till their Revolver hits (I know it sounds blasphemous but if they can pull it off, then that's that anyway).
Juat another proof of how poor the quality of today's music is. No disrespect to Lady GaGa's music and her fans, but that's just unacceptable Lady GaGa is a commercial music phenomenon, but do you really think talent-wise, she is comparable to the likes of Lennon, McCartney or Harrison? I mean, seriosuly?
Hmm, well, I think of people like Michael Jackson as "Kings" like Elvis Presley, just one act you instantly think of when referring to a genre because they made that particular style their bitch. In terms of a collective group of artists to change the way we look at music period.. I'd have to say LP has definitely established this milestone not once but twice now. When I think of bands that have revolutionized the way I myself listen to music I always think of more specific but smaller acts.. not full circle gods of music but acts that made me turn around and say.. "Hey, this genre CAN sound good!," in my opinion if you can make something that makes you wanna puke and make it into something you actually enjoy then I think that's revolutionary in itself. Like Senses Fail, they opened me up to screamo, the band is not in it for the money or fame, they're in it for the music and I love it. I think that's the point where a band is obviously not worried about song structure and switching it up too much because each piece might as well have it's own skeleton, it's a piece of their soul. IMO, Buddy is just an epic lyricist. You can hate the style they play all you want but they are not here to play around or mime anything.