I agree with The National and Hold Steady. Wilco have been around for years already, and will last.

White Stripes, Belle & Sebastien, Arcade Fire, Black Keys, Cat Power, Decemberists (maybe), New Pornographers (in whatever forms - I prefer Destroyer), Go! Team (maybe), Tapes n' Tapes, TV on the Radio and Yeah Yeah Yeahs.

Morphine ended tragically a few years ago, but sound timeless to me.

i was gonna put wilco in that list but theyve already proven themselves as a marathon band. flaming lips too.

someone let David Brooks write an article about pop culture? I heard that they were making cutbacks, but things must be awfully desperate at the NYT.

I agree that Bright Eyes is a safe bet. I mean, "they" have already been around for over a decade. Given that Oberst started when he was a teenager, and keeps getting better every year, sticking it out for the magical 20 year mark seems incredibly likely.

David Brooks is a douche bag.

I saw Ben Harper a couple of weeks ago and he was feeling pretty timeless.

Definitely Wilco, Flaming Lips, the Roots ...

my ultimate lifer: Built To Spill

Hot Chip? Danger Mouse? Those are jokes, right? Gimmicks!

As long as commenters are hauling out Wilco and Flaming Lips and BTS, which are all a decade old, let me add Yo La Tengo and Modest Mouse.

As far as really truly new-ish bands: Animal Collective, Battles, TV On the Radio (why are they all from NYC?).

i thought about battles, but theres no way theyll still be together in five years, let alone 20. theyre a supergroup. theyll put out a couple records and then move onto other things. the musicians in battles, though--theyll be doing crazy weird things til they die.

TVOTR, yeah. BTS, for sure. and the roots! good call.

hot chip is a gamble, but theyve improved and deepened with each album, ep, and remix. the guys in the band have other interests, steam-venting side projects that will ensure they always have hot chip to go back to and enjoy. and theyre one of the best new live bands around.

danger mouse is no gimmick. that was my first impression as well, but hes the real deal. he will continue making interesting music, and his stature as a go-to producer will only improve.

just throwing it out there, maybe they've been overlooked for having obvious staying power: radiohead.

My generation is better than yours!

i think broken social scene as a band but mostly as a dynasty, as proven by the success of metric and feist, and even the kevin drew album. it's like a factory.

possibly grizzly bear.

Those are all boring and pedestrian artists/bands. Musically uninteresting. I guarantee no one is going to pull out a Danger Mouse or Bright Eyes CD in 20 years.

I just realized I'd forgotten Radiohead. If we can nominate Yo La Tengo, then I'd like to suggest rubbing Black Francis' substantial buttocks in Brooks' face. The Pixies were still touring a couple years back, although I maintain that Trompe Le Monde is relatively weak. Speaking of weak last albums, Weezer was huge and stuck around for years.

How does Brooks account for the festivals that are more numerous and larger than ever? There have been a few since Woodstock, and U2 and the Boss aren't propping those up.

laterite, in 20 years ill be sure to pull out the danger mouse/bright eyes collaboration album just to prove you wrong.

As far as I can tell historically "niche" artists who maintain a high level of quality and experimentation often enjoy longer careers than flavor-of-the-month chart-toppers. I look at Zappa, perhaps the original niche artist. As far as I know the only single that ever charted for him was the novelty hit "Valley Girl." And yet over the course of his career he continued to sell albums and tour steadily. His fans were among the most rabid in the world, to the point where his albums continue to sell respectably and his children can mount successful live tours playing his material.

Or look at Neil Young, who hasn't been a pop star in thirty years but, like Zappa, continued to take risks and experiment stylistically (and, like Zappa, to occasionally produce crappy albums.) And he's still widely respected and his tours continue to be substantial draws. And this after how many times some record label told him his new album was career suicide?

The very qualities that contribute to an artists' longevity are the qualities that big labels have no time for -- risk-taking, idiosyncrasies and a sense of artistic integrity. These are all traits that can't be manufactured, which defies the corporate model of pumping out "product."

If in fact this will lead to a future with more middle-class musicians who enjoy steady sales and fewer multi-gazillionaire musicians who appear in US magazine, wouldn't that be a fucking shame?

Of course, in twenty years we may all be living in underground caves and eating bugs, so who can say?

P.S. Twenty years on: I expect to see Gillian Welch still touring. Neko Case too.

Maybe if people actually paid for records, bands would stick around. I doubt any of those bands listed will be able to keep working as hard as they do while living... okay, at best.

@14:
Nice to see the Zappa mention. I was begining to think that the Stranger was anti-Zappa.

Anyways, not that I'm a fan of either of these bands, but I wouldn't be suprised to see Pearl Jam or the Dave Matthews Band still around in 20 years time.

And whoever said Bright Eyes, please put down the crack pipe!

I stand by Bright Eyes (or whatever moniker Connor Oberst eventually uses for his songwriting). Remember, we're not talking about "what record will I still pull out and listen to ini 20 years?" We're talking about "what artist will still be making music in 20 years?" Oberst has been a prolific songwriter for a long time; it's just what he does, and I think he'll still be doing it in 20 years. Doesn't mean I'll be his fan then.

in 20 years, dave matthews will have a specialty ice cream named after him and the kids will be going to see a dmb knock-off band that never stops touring in the hopes of scoring some good drugs from someone far too old to be there.

"Who are those career musicians that we’ll still listen to and care about when we’re old?"

Dancing on the head of a pin here, but that statement implies that in 20 years, said artist will continue to a) make music, and b) have a large fanbase. So sure, Conor Oberst may still be making music in 20 years, but will he be selling out large venues and drawing tens of thousands of attendees? He or Sufjan Stevens may have captured the hearts of a certain subset of music fans, but they've hardly struck the zeitgeist at the level of the Rolling Stones or The Who, nor will they leave nearly the generational legacy. By that I mean the ability to draw parents, kids, and grandkids to buy their catalog and attend their concerts. Kid Rock just had the number 1 album in the country. Nickelback sells millions of copies every time they come out with an album, though for the life of me I can't distinguish one song of theirs from another. 3 Doors Down perpetually does well on tours. Those are the "artists" that will be selling out shows in 20 years, with today's 25-year-old dude from Chehalis bringing his kid and girlfriend to the Kid Rock reunion in 2030.

Sorry, but no one in the original post will come close to being remembered or followed at that level. Actually, Eric, of all of them, your suggestions of Bright Eyes and the Hold Steady probably have the best shot at longevity, but even that is doubtful.

As far as any comparison to Neil Young or Zappa, that is completely ridiculous. I don't particularly enjoy either artist, but as musicians they run circles around and above any on this list.

Ah, in the case of Zappa, that should of course be "ran".

No way Kid Rock will be around in 2030. Did he really have the # 1 album in the country? Is it good? Or wait, maybe that's not a fair question. Is it as bad as I think it is?

I would like to time travel back to 1968 and say Stevie Wonder. Stevie Wonder will be around for twenty years, thirty even.

Unfortunately, Trent, he did. I was floored when I heard that, in addition to this achievement, his show at Showbox SoDo sold out in about 10 minutes. The shift to proto-country seems to have benefited him, though I'm sure he drags out the quality rap-rock chestnuts of a bygone era, to much applause.

He also got in a fight at a Waffle House outside Atlanta, which is much more apropos to where I thought he fit in the pop landscape.

Just happened to have listened to "I Was Made To Love Her" on my iTunes. Timeless pop classic.

dedicated fans keep a musicians career going, not popularity. number-one pop stars are more likely to cash out and walk away; niche artists (like zappa--good call on that) are more likely to stay in the game because they love it.

Dancing on the head of a pin here, but that statement implies that in 20 years, said artist will continue to a) make music, and b) have a large fanbase. So sure, Conor Oberst may still be making music in 20 years, but will he be selling out large venues and drawing tens of thousands of attendees? He or Sufjan Stevens may have captured the hearts of a certain subset of music fans, but they've hardly struck the zeitgeist at the level of the Rolling Stones or The Who, nor will they leave nearly the generational legacy.

See, this, more than just longevity, is what Brooks is bemoaning. What we've lost isn't just longevity or massive, unifying pop music, but the combination of the two.

There are still, and will continue to be bands with longevity. But they exist in a fragmented musical marketplace.

There are still massive, unifying pop cultural phenomenons (go watch kids doing the Soulja Boy dance on youtube if you don't believe me). But they're not necessarily coming from "career" bands or acts with a lot of staying power.

The fact is, you need a pretty thoroughly monopolized media to keep the big hits coming from the same acts year after year. Labels would love this, as it eliminates the work of finding new artists and keeping current. Nickelback and Kid Rock are perhaps still good examples of this model, but, despite album sales, they're also hardly the Who or the Rolling Stones.

So, Brooks, Little Stevie: Yes, there will still be bands with longevity, you just might have to look harder for the And there will still be songs that every damn person in America is singing along to together, but they might not come from artists that will be around very long. The baby boomers will miss the few big, easy narratives, but all the fractured, little hard-to-find (at least for old people) stories are a lot more interesting anyway.

I think the point is that there are no new artists these days with the talent of a Springsteen or The Rolling Stones.

Oh, and this should be a big, fucking "duh!", but has anybody ever mentioned Sonic Youth to these asshats?

Well put Eric. I think Brooks, et al are engaging in a bit of selective nostalgia as well. For every Who, Zep, Beatles or Rolling Stones to come out of the 60s, there's 50 bands that existed for 3 months in 1967. Zager & Evans, anyone? One-hit wonders have been around since the early 50s, and many have come and gone since then. Pop has always had a large measure of disposability to it, so I think in large part it's a matter of the individual music geek finding the worthwhile artists from each era. Souljah Boy is what's hot with junior-highers today, just as Vanilla Ice was when I was their age, and will be just as laughable and embarrassing to them in 15 years. I like to think I have more discerning tastes now, but there's ol' Rip Van Winkle, with his stupid grin and shaved eyebrows, haunting my past.

Jesus, ROB Van Winkle is what I meant...can we have an "edit" function soon, so these gaffes can be nicely swept under the rug? :^D

Not to keep hijacking the thread, but your point about the little stories from music history is a good one. How many people know that "Creed" from The Office really is a guy named Creed, who was part of a platinum-selling folk-rock group?

The Grass Roots.

"The baby boomers will miss the few big, easy narratives, but all the fractured, little hard-to-find (at least for old people) stories are a lot more interesting anyway."

Mr. Grandy, your constant age-ism is really boring. Don't generalize your biases to an entire generation; not everyone over 40 wants to see things return to the way they were 20 years ago. And thanks largely to the net, good new music, recorded and live, is easier to find than ever - for people of any age. People who in their youth pretty much listened to what they were spoon-fed by mainstream radio and record stores and Rolling Stone, can now find music that they actually like so much more easily; music that they probably would have preferred 'back then' but were never exposed to. This music fragmentation everyone goes on about is really just about more choices and options being instantly available to everyone. How can anyone be against that? Only those who stand to gaining by limiting your choices (usually to their own financial benefit.)

Fact: Old people fear the internet and smell like death.

Fact: Everyone's checking out porn and Perez Hilton on the Internets.

The more longevity a band has, the less interesting they become, so if the trend is moving away from it, away from overstaying one's welcome, we're privileged.

The more longevity a band has, the less interesting they become

Not true with Boredoms. They've become more interesting over time.

tool?

Ughh!

My wife suggested Coldplay. I hate to admit that may be right...

"Fact: Old people fear the internet and smell like death."

Ha ha, pretty funny. I'm guessing you wouldn't get a laugh from similar 'jokes' about blacks or women or homosexuals, though. It's unfortunate but hardly surprising that most hipsters turn out to be just as shallow and arrogant in their beliefs as the racist, sexist and homophobic people they despise.

No, no, RK. It's fun (and funny) to make fun of the aged because, fate allowing, we'll all be old one day. Growing old and dying is a universal part of the human condition that a particular ethnicity, gender, or orientation isn't. So there's some comiseration at work there.

But don't even get started on the fatties—why are they so fucking fat? Gross!

The more longevity a band has, the less interesting they become

I can't let this rest.
Beatles' later albums >>> earlier albums
Captain Beefheart made great albums 13-15 years into his career
Miles Davis created amazing music while in his 40s
Black Dice improve with age
Mouse on Mars keep flipping the script and remaining interesting 13 years on from their debut LP

I could go on, but hijacking threads just ain't my game.

Right, Segal, but for every example you may come up with -- whether or not one cares for any of the bands you mentioned -- there's an overwhelming amount of counter-examples, suggesting the old exceptions/rule cliche.

"I prefer their earlier stuff" is not just a mockable fan-flinch when musicians are brought up in conversation, but it speaks of an underlying feeling that music is often at its most vital when it's fresh and relevant, before the ideas recycle themselves, the surprises start to become more rare, and the rot sets in.

It's almost a parallel to the singles/albums argument or the popist/rockist one.

While the music we follow may sometimes be best in its early bursts or best in a long, evolving arc, the majority of it appears to fall on the former side of things, so if the overall creative and consumer trend is gradually starting to mirror the pattern, it suggests that things are adjusting in a healthy way and getting better, and that we're moving past the original Rolling Stones/U2/Bruce Springsteen ideal, which is becoming as outdated as the bands themselves.

I generally agree with your point, Fawkes, but I have problems with sweeping generalizations.

I can also envision a lot of talented artists having their potential thwarted or quashed by the pattern you celebrate. Sure, many mediocre/poor bands will mercifully have their careers decimated, but so too will some potentially great ones--some of which even might have enhanced Fawkes' life.

It's an ideal, though, and like ideals, they only work in the world with exceptions.

I can think of a number of personal favorites who never would've found their own brilliance if they'd been cut short.

It's not, however, as if the push for creative efficiency is all-encompassing, but more that the majority of the emphasis is going to be in in a better place, and the end result would make those few theoretical might-have-been-great sacrifices worth the risk.