Well, with the bands you mentioned, there's a distinct pattern of lifestyle accompaniment - you couldn't be a "true" Smiths fan unless you took everything Morrissey said as Gospel. You couldn't be a full on Nirvana fan unless you were suicidal / depressed / dirty. (Seriously, In 8th Grade I remember a kid bragging that he hadn't showered all week - girls loved him.) Show me where Morrissey has EVER gone against anything he preached? And Cobain? Well, he obviously meant it. A band like the Manic Street Preachers has that same kind of fan base largely due to Richey's disappearance. It seems as if there are few bands that have an entire LIFESTYLE to subscribe to.

I suppose the closest thing nowadays may be being friended on Pete Wentz' Myspace.

That's sad. I'm sad.

Another thing to remember is that the 00's are hardly over yet. I mean, we've got three more years. Something might come up. Someone might get better, or just bigger. Someone might surprise you. I guess I could be viewed as an optimist...

bananarama has a new cd out. maybe they're your shining beacon of hope.

but there's only two now. it seems they've lost the "rama"

I like the Bloc Party enough to throw my middle finger up in anger. You never liked them if I recall rightly.

Wait there was no suggestion there. You know what I love though? Covers. Drive by Strawpeople and Bic Runga is fucking fantastic.

I think the "big things" are not usually as obvious in the short term. Nirvana wasn't an obvious contender until they had a couple albums... I mean, how many people loved Bleach when it first came out (don't answer that... we don't need indie cred seekers... barring the fact that it's the only album of theirs I own on CD [smirk])...

I think bands like the White Stripes, Underworld, Aesop Rock, My Morning Jacket, Interpol, Mogwai and other "just outside the mainstream" types will be seen in perspective given time. The immediacy of the Internet has caused us to see music as temporary... you're right in that assertion... but it's the music fanatics who build the historical canon in retrospect.

No one called Joy Division or Gang Of Four the flag-bearers of a stylistic landmark when they were around... same with The Cure, or Depeche Mode... but ALL of those bands are heavily referenced for the influence they've had on the current generation (it's like the old Velvet Underground story, or the Pixies - underappreciated in their own time). It'll be TOMORROW'S music fanatics and indie musicians who determine what really defined this decade.

I will, however, say this is a decade of recycling (post punk, covers (as mentioned), new punk, 70s easy listening etc) - that may be its legacy in the shorthand of musical footnotes - but I guarantee there are musicians out there right now writing masterpieces because they were inspired by a modern musician we may or may not see as being influencial... I mean who knows what the long-term effect of "the Canadian sound" will be (Stars, Arcade Fire, Metric et al)...

I just don't think it's fair to write some of it off so quickly. We just happen to be seeing this decade in a much more immediate light since we can absorb EVERYONE'S opinions simultaneously (something we could do in decades previous). 10 years ago, one diehard friend into a band made it seem like a fanatical fanbase existed... since they knew bootleg traders and concert-goers who shared their views. Now, if you can't keep a steady stream of conversation going, it seems like you've disappeared.

I really believe the impact of this decade won't be determined by us, especially not in the here and now, but by the next wave of fans who will find something in the nooks and crannies, or the pop spotlight that we may or may not have noticed yet.

(I need to stop carrying around this giant soapbox - it just tempts me to climb on far too often)