I don't think that there is a definable sound yet for this generation, in fact I think that the lack thereof is in itself the sound of this generation. This generation hasn't had a defining moment or sound yet, we're searching, and that search so far encompasses all points of the music spectrum. The internet has brought so much music to our fingertips that we tend to browse and pick our music a la carte and that prevents one sound from rising to the forefront. When you're constantly on shuffle you don't remain in any one spot long enough for it to grab you.

Sent by Brian | 3:01 PM ET | 05-08-2008

I think it's difficult to define the music of an era without distance. I graduated high school in '81 - so the music I considered mine is all Billy Joel, Styx, Pat Benatar and then Duran Duran, R.E.M. and Squeeze in college. Does that fall into anyone's idea of defining bands? "Mix" stations always play album cuts that never saw the light of day on mainstream radio as landmark songs while Exile, who had the #1 Top 40 song of the year in 1978, have been "exiled" because the band went Country. I would say look to soundtracks like "Garden State" for the mix that we'll be attaching to Gen Y.

Sent by Ann V. | 3:32 PM ET | 05-08-2008

Postmodern. It doesn't have a definition, but that's just what it is.

Sent by Emory | 3:43 PM ET | 05-08-2008

I would say look to soundtracks like "Garden State" for the mix that we'll be attaching to Gen Y.

Gag me. If that's what will define my generation, I want out!

Sent by Lars | 3:50 PM ET | 05-08-2008

Instant gratification.

My grandmother only saw Elvis perform live on the Ed Sullivan show. I googled Britney Spears and found 148341 videos of her, alone. My mom shuffles through cassettes and cds, while I flip through my ipod for any random album I have. I use to attend "release parties" at record stores for big cd releases (Radiohead, Modest Mouse), but now I can preorder it on itunes, and not even put shoes on to get it. Its not so much the rebellion, its the laziness.

Sent by Angela | 3:55 PM ET | 05-08-2008

This generation's access to the internet has broadened our horizons well past the point where "the sound of a generation" can be defined. Most of us can PROVE that we listen to a little bit of everything.

Yesterday, I made a mixtape for a big move I'm making in a week. For every Velvet Underground track, there's a Camera Obscura. For Every Silver Jews, there's a Thin Lizzy track. For every Destroyer, Mulatu Astatke.

I can tell you what I like, what defines me, but most of that is the music of earlier generations - or music that draws heavily from them.

Take Okkervil River's "John Allyn Smith Sails" or "Plus Ones." Both songs depend on the work of earlier artists. This whole generation is like this. We are the whole of the 20th Century.

Sent by Matthew Trisler | 4:00 PM ET | 05-08-2008

I think perhaps this generation is not defined by a common sound, but by their fluency in many sounds.

Where I live in Roanoke, Virginia, a group of young musicians has formed The Magic Twig Community (see: www.myspace.com/themagictwigcommunitysound). Within this collective there are countless bands, all speaking their musical language fluently. From 60s psych rock to hip hop to jug band music to 80s synth pop, Magic Twig bands draw on a multitude of sounds and use them to inspire songs of their own.

Now that listeners have the power to choose what they want to hear it appears the drive to 'play what's popular' is rapidly subsiding.

I prefer creativity over imitation anyday!

Sent by rootsminer | 4:05 PM ET | 05-08-2008

Don't know what to call it but I think this generation's sound will be defined by the production techniques - things like the lack of dynamics in the mix and use of pitch correction. I'm talking specifically about mainstream radio here. That's what usually comes to define a generation, not the underground music.

Sent by John McAteer | 4:51 PM ET | 05-08-2008

first thought: hip hop. it is a global force for this generation, too.

the stylings and structure of hip hop is dovetailed with the re-mixed and globalized sounds affored by the web

Sent by dizzymslizzy | 4:55 PM ET | 05-08-2008

As a Gen Y, we want what's new, "original" and different. That's why the music acts have such a short shelf life. They are new for a season and then they are out.

Vampire Weekend is a great example of my generation. Pretty great music, unsigned, received a lot of press for being "underground" however their next album will be unheard of in the mainstream way.

The same "underground" status is even craved for other genres besides indie rock.

For example, hip-hop, Kanye blew up and was fresh and new and "original", but after all is said and done people are beginning to lose that admiration.

Another example, Mariah Carey, her label can put as much press on E=MC2 as they want, but she will never be what she was in the 90s because of her being around since the 90s.She's not original or fresh or underground. (However, artists that come back from the 90's means they are either being "ironic" or "retro" which gives them a novelty effect)

So it doesn't matter what the actual sound is, as long as it has a beat and has a new face to it, then it's cool.

As for Garden State, Juno and Napoleon Dynamite have done a similar thing to indie music. "Unique" and "originality" in films is as important as it is in music. (Their soundtracks give audience members music "cred". Juno is actually coming out with another soundtrack because a lot of that audience hasn't heard twee or anti-folk before)

There won't be a defined genre, there's just way too much music getting out there and growing at similar rates to have a chosen genre.

Sent by Sara Knee | 5:02 PM ET | 05-08-2008

Please let it not be "Crunk" music.
That's all I'm asking.

Sent by bryant | 6:32 PM ET | 05-08-2008

Indie, emo, acoustic stuff. I think we're sort of going back to the folk rock stuff, thank jesus! :)

Sent by desi | 7:04 PM ET | 05-08-2008

I think all the musical generations you listed share the commonality of being part of the progression of the music industry. All of those eras of music depended on the music industry giving them record deals. But as the industry began to take over the music, technology has served as the self correction.

Now for our generation (born 1979), anyone with a mac and a thousand bucks to buy equipment with can make a record that is halfway decent. That kind if change in the musical landscape has given rise to a growing disparity between music as an art and music as a business. It didn't used to be like that.

So I think the lasting musical legacy for our generation is going to be the "indie," for lack of a better word, scene. It's an awfully wide variety of styles, but the melding of styles is part of that same thing.

I don't think we'll have a style like swing or hip hop that defines us musically, but rather a rethinking of the music industry in general.

Sent by Wes Hunter | 11:20 PM ET | 05-08-2008

Genration "Y" as in "Why bother?
I think its not generation 'Y" but generation "z"
as in 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's - being asleep.
As an art revolutionary its hard to wake anybody up in this century And perhaps none are safer than the media.
Z as in zombie!
We use to answer "what are you rebelling against/" with "What have you got". Now when asked "What are you rebelling against?" the reply is "Oh sorry didn't mean to make waves!" Ha ha!

Sent by Tom Hendricks | 12:44 AM ET | 05-09-2008

I forget who it was that said this to me, but I think it explains quite a bit:

"Your generation is the first generation that not only listens to (and likes) their parent's music, but their grandparents', too."

So much of what defined the music of prior generations was that generation having a teenage rebellion against their parents, and all that defined "old."

But now that music is so readily available, we grow up listening to music from every era, and can appreciate it on its own terms. So the music we love ends up being more evolutionary than revolutionary. Artists are experimenting with known forms, using electronic techniques in very organic ways, while trying to figure out what makes music good. And whenever that experimentation works, the Top 40 crowd grab hold of it, and reproduce it as best they can, trying to figure out why people like it.

So this generation's music is built on the music of the past, rather than a radical departure. Think of it like the Romantic period of music, taking the forms and themes of the Classical and Baroque periods' works, and making them more complex and robust. Keeping what worked, and discarding what didn't.

Which makes me happy, because I love stuff from the Romantic period, and I really like some the stuff that's coming out now. So I can only look with anticipation to what's coming next.

Sent by Ian | 2:01 AM ET | 05-09-2008

Democratic music? Past eras were easier to define in terms of genres because they were characterized by only one or at times a few styles of music...

This era is different in that it could only be defined BY the access to ALL forms of music by the listeners of the art form.

This is also in one way or another, the era of independent music ! Indie Rock, Indie Pop, Indi Hip Hop. The death of the old record industry and the birth of a new musical landscape where the music flows like water and is created by everyone.

Indeed this is the beginning of a new democratic era of the art form.

Sent by Ash Adil From Michigan | 2:29 AM ET | 05-09-2008

I believe generation Y is defined by EMO. It seems to be what most bands on the radio sound like.

Sent by Gary | 5:22 AM ET | 05-09-2008

I think it's wrong to say we're in a postmodern age without history and without a style. We've certainly moved beyond the downbeat, paranoid and ironic age of 90s rock, for instance. Developments like the introduction of dance into rock, or electronica into folk, suggest a new need for movement, colouration, experimentation, hybridisation - and fun. There's a childishness in music these days that you can hear in the yowling vocal deliveries and hand-clapping choruses of bands like Los Campesinos! (or indeed Clap Your Hands Say Yeah).

Sent by Robbie | 6:58 AM ET | 05-09-2008

You know the sound of typing on a keyboard. Thats generation Y.

Sent by Brendon | 8:46 AM ET | 05-09-2008

Unfortunately, I think it's hip hop. Not the good stuff like The Roots or Mos Def either but the top 40 MTV stuff. I think the sound that defines the generation has to be obvious - and hip hop has been incredibly popular for years now... ugh...

On the other hand, you can argue that there is no defined sound for this generation. If that's the case then I think it's because people have more choices available to them. There are so many different genres out there and thanks to technology, it's easy to expose yourself to music not found on the radio. Perhaps the days of a generational sound are over...?

Sent by David | 9:14 AM ET | 05-09-2008

I haven't listened to the radio in a few years. I think that says something about the sound of our generation. I find my music mostly through the internet i.e myspace, all songs, facebook. This generation is so open to new sounds and techniques, I don't think you can sum up our "sound" with one word or idea. I guess if I had to I would say "availability" is the sound of my generation.

P.S I love All Songs Considered. I wouldn't be listening to half the amazing music I do if it wasn't for you. Thank you!!!

Sent by Michael Fox | 9:26 AM ET | 05-09-2008

With the indie music evolution (revolution?), the music of generation Y in undefinable. And maybe that's just it, The Indie era.

Sent by jmj | 9:26 AM ET | 05-09-2008

I was born in 1978, right between Gen X and Y and now I teach highschool. For me and my friends, the democracy of the internet has overwhelmed the influence of tastemakers like MTV and radio, so we can listen to a little of everything or focus on some tiny obscure niche. But where I teach, it seems like every kid wears emo band shirts. So I'd say for middle class white kids it's either undefined or emo.

Sent by zebbart | 10:23 AM ET | 05-09-2008

I think something that hasn't been said is that, despite the internet's rising prevelance, lots of places don't have diverse media outlets that even tell kids anything exists to look for. All over America, the radio is sounding more and more the same, dominated by top-20 playlisting and demo-oriented marketing. For an awful lot of people my age, if they don't love what they hear on the radio or might get lost in the endless sea of obscurity fostered by the internet, a huge influence on our tastes has been wrought by a tired and true source for many generations: our parents.

Now, I was born in 1982 and I was lucky enough to grow up in Southern California- a major media market with lots of options and outlets tied to a culturally urban/suburban environment. I didn't have my own computer with internet access until I went off to college, but that didn't stop me from growing into a full-blown music nerd. I consumed back issues of Mojo and Spin and RS, and I would read collections of music journalism for fun (or I used to, anyway.) I would rent "The Last Waltz" and "Velvet Goldmine" every weekend. I started trading mix CDs with smart, hip friends and going to shows all the time. Even though my tastes were still maturing, in my teenage years I became exposed to not only the latest iterations of different genres and styles, but I had the ability to go back and hear where they came from.

"Emo" to a lot of us started with Jimmy Eat World, but became The Promise Ring and Jawbreaker, and then eventually Rites of Spring and DC hardcore. "Metal" might have been System of a Down, but soon became the Dillinger Escape Plan, Entombed, Metallica, Judas Priest and Sabbath.

Eventually, the internet and a healthy appetite for cultural minutae would lead me to establish a very well-rounded set of sensibilities and aethetic values that hopefully will help prevent my generation from being defined solely by what I listened to in high school.

But really, it all starts with the fact that I was lucky enough to steal the copy of "London Calling" my Dad bought in the 90s to appear cooler in his middle age, leading me to discover ska and reggae and punk and art rock and glam and eveything else. But he was, after all, from Canada, and I'd be lying if I said this wasn't the biggest reason that I STILL know the words to a dozen or so Bachman Turner Overdrive songs. And when nobody is around and my apartment is dark in the night, you just might still find me rocking out to "Ain't Seen Nothing Yet..."

Sent by Brendan K. | 10:29 AM ET | 05-09-2008

The Swell Season, the people who were in the film "Once" then went on to be a real couple/band, sold out a 3,000 seat hall here locally in just a few days(which is unusual). It's that kind of media synergy that defines what's pop now.
I was astonished a few years ago when an appearance by William Hung, the failed 'American Idol' contestant, created a long line for tickets at the local record store - while 'real' music often goes begging.

Sent by schlep | 11:08 AM ET | 05-09-2008

Schlep answered it correctly.

William Hung is the sound of this generation, end of story.

Sent by Skirkster Beetle | 11:13 AM ET | 05-09-2008

First it was Ian Curtis, then it was David Byrne, then it was David Bowie, then it was Bruce Springsteen, then it was Paul Simon.... the defining music of our generation is all mimicry of the past greats.

Sent by David W. | 11:14 AM ET | 05-09-2008

I was born in '83 and everyone my age agrees that the bands of the early '90s rock--Nirvana, Weezer, Pearl Jam, etc. define how we remember that era. As a counterpart, we remember huge commercial hip hop like puff daddy...it was the final hey day for the major labels. Another defining moment was Napster. We all remember coming of age and experiencing music through napster. We all had some of the most random mixes of unrelated songs. And the process of downloading new stuff is unique to our generation. This ushered in a fragmentation of music and media in the 2000s that we're still dealing with today. Then Myspace broke and suddenly everyone is distributing music that they make in their home. Most of it is bad. But no true music fans, and most of our generation is not listening to radio or getting music on MTV. We're more likely to hear a new band like Vampire Weekend while watching Gossip Girl. It seems that the only defining theme is the minute personalization of our music...almost as a fashion accessories worn with an iPod. And in spite of all of this a few bands manage to reach a critical mass. I feel like I'll remember seminal albums by bands that reached a critical mass like Radiohead, Beck, Wilco, Arcade Fire, etc. But that's just my taste. We all have our own tastes and that's the only thing that binds us. I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess it is post-modern.

Sent by Lee | 11:24 AM ET | 05-09-2008

I'm going to sound like a grumpy old man, but the predominant sound I hear now is amateurishness. My college-age daughter at art school seems to like just about anything that isn't played (especially sung) competently (Kimya Dawson being a good example). There wasn't one song in your last All Songs Considered podcast, for instance, whose vocalist didn't make me cringe. Is this an American Idol backlash?

ok..try this, think Dylan, think Velvet Underground, think Kinks, think Neil Young.
need i go on. Those are the same aesthetics heard on this weeks show. Music now is about the personal not the flash. It's less rehearsed and I'd say better for it. What Dylan, Lou Reed and Neil Young had was a way to sing with raw emotion. True it is polar from American Idol I suppose, but not a reaction...because I'd imagine the singers on this weeks All Songs Considered couldn't care less about that show.

I'd also listen to a few of these songs a few times through and see if they don't grab you. Remember competence can be heard on the billboard 100, it doesn't make it lovable or better.
bob boilen

Sent by John | 12:09 PM ET | 05-09-2008

It's hip hop.

Sent by Devan | 12:21 PM ET | 05-09-2008

Death metal.

In all seriousness, there is no overriding sound of this generation. Alternative, boy band, Top 40, dance rock, emo, indie, gangsta rap, hip-hop, metal, techno, electronic, "retro" bands, what passes for punk these days, post-rock, prog-rock, experimental, and on and on. Unlike the previous generations, the landscape of popular music today contains many hills and no real mountains.

Sent by Bobby | 2:29 PM ET | 05-09-2008

For this generation it's the medium not the message.

Sent by dk | 2:53 PM ET | 05-09-2008

Dear All Songs Considered,

I am surprised to read that even the Millenials' at NPR were stumped on what is the sound of our generation. Listening to your show this morning of "The Great Unknowns" it seems only obvious. Though the catch is the music of our generation is an aesthetic, not a genre. The aesthetic being the undiscovered, or simply the underground. Within each underground genre whether it be some strange one person sub-subgenre or simply indie (suggesting independent), the defining factor for most is the intimacy the listener feels with the musicians or artist. In my prior example of indie music, it's Generation Lo-fi. Listeners opt for the surreality and noise of say Grizzly Bear or Neutral Milk Hotel over magazine faces and commercial success. It's the same with underground hip hop and all the subgenres of punk and hardcore and country and americana. A good song hits me mostly when I'm in my living room and I feel like the band is there with me or could be and not unreachable or infallible.

Sent by colin m. | 3:15 PM ET | 05-09-2008

I tried to think last night what music "kids listen to these days" that makes me want to scream, "Get off my lawn!" at them, but there's not a lot that I can't tolerate. Angry suburban rock (Korn, Lincoln Park, Evanescence, etc) is what comes to mind most, but even that I can tolerate in small doses.

Its already been brought up that Generation Y doesn't seem to be rebelling in anyway with a new sound, but I don't think the last couple of generations are letting them rebel too much. It's easy for me to see the difference in my taste of music compared with my Dad's. There's definitely a generational line there. There are some things I listen to that my Dad can't tolerate. But I don't see the same line with my younger relatives or some of the kids at work. You are more likely to hear, "Wow, that's sounds cool. Turn it up," from people now in their 30's and 40's hearing a new band then you are to hear, "turn that racket off!" And I don't think it is because they are trying to pretend they are still in their 20's.

The incredible accessibility to different types of bands and artists make it tougher for a generation to choose just one sound as well.

I think there is a trend of mixing genres that will be indicative of the Generation Y soundtrack. Gnarls Barkley and Gorillaz are examples of that. In fact, I think "Crazy" will be one of the songs that will induce a bar room full of reminiscent "Y"ers to spontaneously sing along out loud in a few years; the same way that folks my age would with "Living on a Prayer" (although we only sing that out loud to be ironic.)

I also think that a lot of the soundtrack will be reinvented older sounds. Mark Ronson is giving a real Motown sound to a lot of the stuff he produces and bands like The Futureheads have a real new wave sound to them. When I listen to Vampire Weekend, I hear a lot of The Police in their sound.

I don't see the Generation Y soundtrack breaking away from the music of older generations. I see it embracing those sounds and using them in their own musical voice, sort of like a grand remastering and remixing of whole genres.

Sent by Mac Coldwell | 4:25 PM ET | 05-09-2008

I tend to agree with most of the post that discuss how my generation mix and matches music. How my generation is breaking the the recorded industry. And did you notice that most of the post have been written by blokes that do not listen to the radio. The sound track of Y is created be each user for the time place, and feeling attached. Last week I went to a party, on the way there I was listening to Dylan. Not really party music right? It was Tupac and Biggy for the night, yet that morning on the way to starbucks I was walking to the tunes of "I wide awake, it's morning"

Sent by shawn | 8:55 PM ET | 05-09-2008

How would I define the music of today's generation? I'd describe it as end-user, individualistic and personal. I submit to you that, as a rule, music today does not serve to connect us as a large generational group. Instead, the music of this generation is something that defines us as people. I would also echo the comments that have stressed the importance of the Internet as a medium for finding music. But even these comments do not go to the heart of the matter, which is that the Internet has given us so much variety that we can no longer be a homogeneous generation.

Sent by Pablo | 11:02 PM ET | 05-09-2008

So many correct answers. For many (especially here, with your audience), the answer would include Nirvana, REM, and those that have been influenced by them. The notion of an 'underground' and the 'undiscovered' would certainly appeal to the crowd here as well.

For others, however, the answer might include former mouseketeers, boy bands, country, hair metal, Jimmy Buffet, Jay Z.

We're the generation of the narrowcast. We started with our radio divided along crispy clean enclaves - oldies, country, college rock, top 40. And then, the internet got involved. You can find your niche and you never have to leave it.

Wikipedia has an entry on "cello rock". While I don't honestly believe that's a genre, it's a sign of the times. See also the "indie-folk-tronica" referenced by Second Stage (which isn't even wikied yet), or "nerdcore".

Sent by jamesG | 12:29 AM ET | 05-10-2008

the Millenials i have known and observed fall into two basic types. type 1 are those who observe genre boundaries - i'd say amongst that type, Emo really is the defining music that gen Y will be remembered for. but the 2nd type is a new breed that ignores genre limitations and boundaries, both aesthetically and socially (observance of musical genre has always had a big social role) more than any prior generation - for instance, as a gen X type, i reflexively put a very different value on music that is played live on organic instruments vs. music composed in a computer, but gen Y isn't interested in that distinction.

Sent by slim moon | 8:09 PM ET | 05-10-2008

I'll start by mentioning I was born in '79, then agree with jamesG's response. I would also add that since the late 60's it seems that the basic music category 'Rock' has been (and will continue) spawning an infinitely expanding number of sub-categories (at least according to hipsters and slick music mags), bringing us to the current age, where people attach themselves to their favorite niche (one only needs to see the available musical style choices on myspace to verify, my favorite being 'Melodramatic Popular Song'). Although there are people out there, perhaps a small few from the new generation, that are putting everything back under the umbrella of Rock and listening to all of it. I'm also amused by the growing trend of people in their early-twenties liking music/musicians once considered lame or passe (Neil Diamond, ABBA, Journey, Styx... for instance) merely for the irony of liking them; "they're so bad, they're good."

Sent by Matt Hocker | 10:47 PM ET | 05-10-2008

Of course, we who listen to "All Songs Considered" want just that.... all songs considered for our generation (I was born in '83). And although that is slowly creeping into the popular opinion, I do not believe that can be considered our trademark. They may also purchase music online, but over half of the Gen Y'ers I know listen to Top 40, which I think is overrun with Hip Hop. Like others here have said, it's the mainstream culture that defines the soundtrack.

Sent by Tara | 8:54 AM ET | 05-11-2008

Commenting on the sound of my generation is a little strange for me. I will be graduating from college in a few weeks and in the fall I will be attending graduate school. I have been very reflective recently and this blog seems to fall into that theme; but I digress.

I would define our generation with a single song. Radiohead's recent album "In Rainbows" contains a gem of a song titled "All I need." It is as much a song to make out to as it is a song that truly epitomizes the social disconnect that our generation can experience in our digital world. Our lives can become dominated by blogs, facebook, and scanning 24 hour news web sites. It also helps that this song was distributed with the Radiohead online promotion/gimmick where the user could download the album and pay what they thought was fair. If that doesn't define a generation I don't know what does.

Sent by Jon Avery | 3:21 PM ET | 05-11-2008

This generation has no definite sound, as a few people mentioned, but rather an overwhelming sound of yesterday. Artists today assimilate sound of generations before to create a unique sound with empty nostalgia. However, some artists do this very well. My latest musical crushes have joined Folk, Motown, Show Tunes, and Rock to create a musical vernacular separate from the sound it derives from. Crushes like Sway (Boston), Pearl and the Beard (New York), and The Venn Diagrams (New York), linking grand sounds with fleeting loves and historic rebellion successfully tap into the lack of identity this generation has and made it their own.

Sent by Brad Silk | 4:22 PM ET | 05-12-2008

The underground brought into the foreground? Myspace is the postmodern record store.

Maybe our stylistic values are uncertainty. Maybe our identity is the loss of identity. Who needs a Patriot Act when our blogs tell 1) Our political and philosophical affiliations 2) Our reading habits (no need for library snooping!) 3) Who has made us mad, and what form of retribution we'd like to retaliate with, and 4) Why we did or did not like the specific color of nail polish, or fishnet stockings on our favorite (fe)male artist? (On a side note, I have contemplated this topic and enjoyed both accessories equally on Jolie Holland and Johnny Thunders.)

The rising sales of independent artists / independent record labels seems like an egalitarian reaction to the corporate dominance of the music market, which stems as far back as the 70's, or 50's or 20's, depending on who you ask. Artists like Wilco , Radiohead and others who have embraced the communicative abilities of the internet have reaped, above all, the immense benefits of artistic freedom.

If I am letting my optimist-self speak, I think we're in for a few more years of marketing and aesthetic innovation which will construct the atmosphere both the artist and the fan would like to exist within. If the pessimist speaks, we are in the musical equivalent of global warming, where so much noise pollution will corrupt our best sensibilities. Auto-Tune will suck the voice out of the heartland, leaving it a virtual dustbowl of talent. Pro Tools will become the anti-pacemaker, stealing the rhythms of life in our heartbeats and circadian habits. Simon Cowell will crown himself "Jesus 2.0" (or "Jesus Vista", whichever is more defunct) and call forth his legion of extraneously high-fructose pop music to drown out the coastal pockets of artistic communities in the U.S., so all that we are left with is that dustbowl that I mentioned earlier. And Simon Cowell.

So I think our generation exists in a middle state where we have yet to harness the immense powers of the internet into any worldwide collective good. And we're living with the consequences of being perpetual slackers. Here's to us.

Sent by EP | 10:33 PM ET | 05-12-2008

I quickly read through the earlier postings and agree with some. Based on the brief description in the Unknown Showcase show, a generation becomes defined by the "new" music created during that time. People are continuely inspired by what came before, but I think some of the most original sounds from our generation are Emo, and The many sounds that fall under Electronica. I personally think Weezer's Pinkerton was the mainstream start of Emo. I am not as deep into the Electronica scene, and so have no specific artist to offer.

But other artists from this time to consider: Radiohead, At the Drive In & Rage Against the Machine, They Might Be Giants, Cake, The Flaming Lips, Frank Black, Jon Spencer, Tori Amos, and Sonic Youth.

Sent by Kat | 1:38 PM ET | 05-13-2008

I personally refer to the born in 1980-90 generation the Dot Com generation. It's the defining characteristic of our lives. We have computers from kindergarten on. It's affected every bit of our lives.

So with that in mind, I would state that we are the first generation without a collective soundtrack. We witnessed the death of MTV, the rise of Napster, and basically a freedom to take in the music we like. As opposed to what record companies felt would sell the best. If you want to peg the music of our generation with a singular term I would use Indie. Of course it doesn't describe a type of music but it does explain it's deliver.

Consider this, while I was in college there were two songs that everyone I knew had on their computer. "Because I Got High" by Afroman and The Gourds version of "Gin and Juice". Neither song was formally sold and in the case of "Gin and Juice" most people still don't know who actually performed the song. These were two songs distributed solely on the internet.

Sent by Jeremy | 5:21 PM ET | 05-13-2008

well, if my tween daughter is any indication, it's hip hop and what would have been called hard rock in 70s and grunge in the 90s!

Sent by OlderMusicGeek | 7:17 PM ET | 05-13-2008

As a member of this generation, I do have to agree with the people that have acknowledged the difficulty in identifying a type of sound of this generation. With the introduction of the Internet, bands no longer have to depend on mediums like MTV or radio stations to promote their music. This allows for increasing experimentation with varieties of sounds because they do not have to seek anyone's approval before reaching audiences. Look at the success of Sara Bareilles, who by allowing a free download of her song "Love Song" on itunes, achieved mainstream success by the next month. Bands, with the simple aid of websites such as Myspace, can promote themselves, thus expanding the freedom for both artists' creativity and listeners' choice on sounds.

Sent by Tiffany | 12:16 PM ET | 05-14-2008

There is a strong difficulty level with identifiying a sound for this generation - at least as an outsider. I think they are less force-fed than my generation. I am 33 as we didn't have much choice. Instead, we were forced to listen to the music on the radio Casey Cason's Sunday Top 40 and MTV videos. We didn't have the listening luxury and freedom of downloads, internet archives, and ipods. Records got broken, tape reels broke, and cds got scratched. It was difficult to transport 100 cds. Do you remember the big black zippered bags? Access to 1000's of personal selections was impossible. This generation in all their freedom has the most diverse "sound track", a "sound track" with expansivness that I find difficult to quantify and even imagine. Lucky Generation Y, with their buffet of delictable tunes - no force feeding. Their music table is set with exactly what they want to devour.

Sent by Christy Hulsey | 3:35 PM ET | 05-14-2008

It is, in no particular order:
Radiohead: OK Computer
Death Cab For Cutie: Plans
The Strokes: Is This It?
Sufjan Stevens: Come on Feel the Illinoise
Beck: Odelay
Whitney Houston: Whitney
Snoop Dogg: Doggystyle
U2: Achtung Baby
Weezer: Weezer(the blue album)
The Smashing Pumpkins: Mellon Collie and The Infinite Sadness
Coldplay: Parachutes
Mariah Carey: Music Box
Christina Aguilera: Self-Titled
The Beastie Boys: Ill Communication
Bjork: Homogenic
Broken Social Scene: You forgot it in People
Red Hot Chili Peppers: Blood Sugar Sex Magik
Nirvana: MTV Unplugged
Arcade Fire: Funeral
Outkast: Stankonia
Pearl Jam: Vs.
The White Stripes: White Blood Cells
Thursday: Full Collapse
The Get Up Kids: Something to Write Home About
John Mayer: Room for Squares
Justin Timberlake: Justified
Kanye West: College Dropout
Wilco: Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
Green Day: Dookie
Guns n' Roses: Use Your Illusion Part I
That is all. If you put those albums in a time capsule, one hundred years from now, people would perfectly understand how screwed up we were. And Why.

Sent by J. Luke Webb | 3:37 PM ET | 05-14-2008

I think a lot of the responses so far have it right when the talk about the effects of the internet, an interest in our parents' and grandparents' music, and the lack of a distinct "sound". Nobody I know listens to music on the radio. Fewer and fewer people I know buy CDs. So there is no longer a sort of centralized, approved sound making it big the way there was in the good old days when Capitol could just put enough money behind a band and turn them into a household name.

But I think the biggest effect is that of the internet, specifically in the way that it globalizes much of our interaction. Going through the day, I'll listen to The Who, Smashing Pumpkins, and Run DMC along with local stuff in my area like Spaghetti Western String Co., but that'll all be followed by Fiamma Fumana's Modenese folk-techno, Orxata Sound System's Barcelonan "post-Bacalao", In Extremo's Old Norse metal covers coming out of Germany, and some Chilean pan flute albums from mix CDs I bought from Peruvians living in Madrid. And to top it off I might switch over to Gogol Bordello for some gypsy punk. Or maybe Tchaikowsky. Or John Lee Hooker.

This is the generation where barriers don't melt under the acid trip, or get torn down by the anarchists, or just get whined away by the grungers. This is the generations where barriers, where genres and categorized tastes, just AREN'T.

Sent by Colin | 4:22 PM ET | 05-14-2008

This generation's music is about sharing influences, that sharing assisted by the internet has put musical development in a warp drive. X&Y generation's music is about plurality, about being eclectic. The sounds reflect that, pulling back on a rich tapestry of music from the past, drawing on global influences and movements, as well as looking forward to what can be.

So much sound can be accepted as music these days. 20 years ago would people put up with what Wilco does live when they dip into their noisey passages? Noise is something that seems to come up often for me, its a musical element that bands will employ to create contrast in the arc of a song, Sonic Youth could be the grandaddy of this, but Wilco uses it, Deerhoof uses it, Radioheads goes there at times, Akron/Family, Liars... Noise is used differently by John Zorn as well as M83 and Man Man.

Extending the range of what is defined as musical or accessible is something that this generation has been really good at. There is a massive plurality of genres and interests, its not uncommon for someone to be interested in Annie from Sweden as well as Shalabi Effect from Montreal and at the same time have a special place in their heart for Biggie Smalls. In the past what you listened to defined who you were, now its the variety of what you listen to that rounds out the corners of your musical taste.

This generation brought Hip Hop! That alone...

Theres also endless varieties of electronic music [jungle, trance, ambient, IDM etc etc] We broke laws and stole music we loved and shared our discoveries with as many people that would listen. Theres the global musical cross pollenization, Beck was hip to the Japanese musical style of Shibuya-Key with bands like Buffalo Daughter and Cornelius. John freaking Zorn, tho technically a boomer, has done much for Jazz/rock/improv/noise/classical. Tim Berne has taken free jazz, funk, and downtown jazz and pushed the envelope of collective improvisation while maintaining a strong pulse and groove. Dave Douglas, The Bad Plus, Marc Ribot, MMW, David Torn, Jamie Saft, Jim Black, The Necks, Nels Cline, Vandermark5, major movers in jazz.

But these are just my opinions based on what Ive managed to wrap my ears around, theres so much more out there to be listened to.

Sent by Jay T | 11:27 PM ET | 05-14-2008

I think a lot of people have already hit the nail on the head, this is the musical generation of microtrends.

Where previously people found music through a limited number of channels, now there is an internet radio station or digital download store to suit any subgenre.

Forget pop music, these days are the end of the platinum artist and the arrival of widespread self-publishing.

Sent by Six | 4:54 AM ET | 05-15-2008

I think that our generation(my generation) has a very definable sound that started with the "The" bands of 2000-2002. Though most faded into obscurity or sold out hard, a couple of them kept it real. For example, The White Stripes or the band that I think is the most important of the 2000's; The Strokes. At the same time, I think there are other records that have defined this generation. "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" by Wilco is an album that instantly comes to mind or even "Neon Bible" by Arcade Fire.

Sent by Scott | 1:58 PM ET | 05-15-2008

apathetic eclecticism

Sent by sonokrug | 6:12 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I think an equally interesting new topic in relation to this one would be: What is (or can there be) the NEW sound in the history of Rock? Has everything been exhausted leaving modern musicians to mimic the sounds of past eras; i.e. garage rock of the 60's, electronica of the early 80's. Or is the only other option to mix and match genres; glam and garage, folk and techno, disco and country... ad infinitum. Or is there some sound, some style out there that is still waiting to be created?

Sent by Matt Hocker | 3:39 AM ET | 05-16-2008

The first time I heard "Staring At the Sun" by TV On the Radio, I knew I was listening to a band that was taking all of their many influences (as so many other posters have pointed out, the Millenials have A LOT of influences) and putting it together in a layered, textural, orchestral kind of way that I think at least lays the groundwork for a type of music that could define a generation.
While I love The Strokes and The White Stripes, they wear their influences on their sleeves. Which is why I like them I guess.
But bands like Animal Collective, Arcade Fire and TV On the Radio, to me, seem to be going above and beyond their influences and end up bringing more than just a certain style to the table.
It's their approach and attitude toward music making that really set them apart and can help define and influence a generation of music.

Sent by Talin | 10:07 AM ET | 05-16-2008

Bamboozled by the demographic BS of William Strauss and Neil Howe, not to mention the many marketing consultants and mainstream media journalists who've blindly followed their lead, Hilton has lumped together members of the Net Generation (1974-83) and the Millennials (1984-93).

Remember in the 1990s, when people in their 20s claimed they didn't feel like a member of the "Twentysomething" generation? That's because the same forces of generational BS had lumped together younger OGXers with older PCers. Later in the decade, members of the so-called Generation X rejected that label... because they were younger PCers lumped together with older Netters. Generation Y -- same thing: They were Netters lumped together with older Millennials.

So what's the soundtrack to these two distinct generations?

Our favorite Netter rock bands -- The Strokes, The White Stripes, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Kings of Leon, The Black Keys, and Yeah Yeah Yeahs --- are garage-rock revivalists. British Netters, meanwhile, tend to be post-punk revivalists; consider Bloc Party, The Libertines, Editors, Interpol, Kaiser Chiefs, Babyshambles, and Franz Ferdinand. Netter chanteuses Lauryn Hill, Alicia Keys, Norah Jones, and Amy Winehouse are soul revivalists.

As for the Disneyfied Millennials, well... so far, their music is Disneyfied. As kids they were into Jennifer Love Hewitt, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Justin Timberlake, all of whom got their start on Disney TV shows. Disney TV shows and movies have also produced the top-selling Millennial acts: Hilary Duff, Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus and the "High School Musical" soundtracks. NB: Mandy Moore and Joanna "JoJo" Levesque didn't need Disney to produce enormously popular Disneyfied pop; and although Lindsay Lohan's career began with Disney, she hasn't been very successful as a pop singer. Amanda Bynes' pop career, meanwhile, was kick-started by Nickelodeon.

What about Avril Lavigne, Rihanna, Joss Stone, and Lily Allen, you ask? They're not American, so although they've influenced the Millennials, they're not Millennials.

Trying to make sense of a "generation" whose favorite acts are The Strokes and Hannah Montana, the Black Keys and Mandy Moore, the White Stripes and Zac Efron, the Libertines and Lily Allen, is a fool's errand. Robin Hilton is no fool, but he's been led astray by wrongheaded generational periodization schemes.

Sent by Joshua Glenn | 10:10 AM ET | 05-18-2008

Generation y starts in 1983, not the late seventies.

Sent by Ian Ghent | 12:23 PM ET | 05-19-2008

neutral milk hotel

Sent by noah | 3:44 PM ET | 05-21-2008

All I have to say is The Strokes and The White Stripes.

Sent by Scott | 2:07 AM ET | 05-22-2008

I think the sound today is a combination of past and present. While I'm not specifically "of this generation," With the exception of Hip Hop, I do like the music coming out now, even if it's a little difficult at times to put it in a specific genre. Folk music seems to have seeped back into our music and the songs that really appear to do well have a story to tell. Ultimately, I think Indie is the sound. Check out Cheyenne (lead singer Beau Jennings) for a combination of the two.

Sent by Beth Muse | 12:02 PM ET | 05-25-2008

Of course we're talking in huge stereotypes anyway when we're talking about "generational music", but I think that saying Gen X's music was grunge and hip-hop is a bit limiting. There was also a huge range of proto-emo stuff, starting back with The Cure, The Smiths, and going through to people like Toad The Wet Sprocket, the Lemonheads (which I guess were sort of grungy to an extent). The soundtracks to "Reality Bites" and "My So Called Life" are good starting points for this, less-hyped sub-genre.

That being said... is Gen Y's music emo?

(born in '78)

Sent by Dave Donovan | 5:49 PM ET | 05-27-2008

It's obvious: the mash-up.

Sent by Aaron | 12:21 PM ET | 05-28-2008

I really think it's next to impossible to generalize. Because this generation has both exposure and access to so much music via the internet, individuals are able to find something that talk directly to them more than previous generations that relied so much on radio or cultural groups to spread new music. It's become much more compartmentalized.

For me (a white, tattooed semi-hipster) it would be "indie" and everything that entails, but that's not going to be the case for my coworkers or even my best friends.

There's too much out there for everyone to be into the same thing at once.

Sent by Jake Sutton | 9:56 AM ET | 06-04-2008

You all had a great discussion, but I think you missed the "new" genre of current generation. Bands like Vampire Weekend, Coldplay and other children of parents who grew up in the 80's are promoting a new type of music, call it what you will, but I sort of see it as "World Music 2.0". Kind of like a genre that was started in the sixties by the Beatles, perpetuated by George Harrison, incorporating eastern music into western styles. Then carrying the torch of world music was Paul Simon, Peter Gabriel, then U2 began kind of a world music vibe on Achtung Baby, then with a band like Radiohead or the Flaming Lips, you have this psychadelic, computer age world wide vibe and now you have Coldplay passing the torch to Vampire Weekend and more good world music influenced torch bearers. Am I right or am I right?

Sent by JB Kunz | 8:07 PM ET | 06-05-2008

As a child of the 60's, I have given up on relying on others for music. I make my own now and am far more pleased with my musical experience, even though I am not as skilled as most. Is it time most young turned to making music together for each other instead of relying on the minority that work to be professional?

Sent by P. U. Wallpaper | 11:39 PM ET | 06-05-2008

www.daytrotter.com

Sent by ( ) | 1:00 AM ET | 06-06-2008

I'd agree that were are talking about Generation Z or whatever they are called.

Generation Y is the mid 90's to early 2000 musically Imo. In my mind the "sound" of the foward thinkers of the our generation is obviously electronic. Aphex Twin defines us. High-brow inverted art with a middle finger.

Once it hit 2003.. everything went plastic with fake nostalgia of the 80's. and went 70's in the case of rock.

That last truely "new" record I've heard was Oval's Diskont94. It's from 95.

Our parents killed art ... we killed music.

Sent by Daniel | 9:25 AM ET | 06-06-2008

I'm a Gen-Y music nut, I grew up as a punker then "sold out" later as I work in publishing now (I'm 21) so defining music to me really has evolved as time has gone on.

I think when you step back and really look at music during this generation its really hard to judge what it is... in reality its a major grab bag, and simply saying a genre like "emo" defines our music is a cop out, there's way to many notable sounds to really label the generation with just one type. Electronica, indie, hip hop, punk, rock, and nu metal have all had face lifts over the past 15 or so years, incorporating more sampling and found sound into works making them stand stronger by themselves. Just take a look at bands like Sky Eats Airplane, Mindless Self Indulgence, Chromeo, Radiohead, Outkast, Soul Coughing, hell even the early work of Sugar Ray had its own grungy feel yet mixed turn tables and samples into their work. We're the generation of the revival of synths and samples. Mixing generes and the ages to make new sounds. I think this generation is the official Electric age, where producing and mixing in some areas has made the music the way it is today.

Even then, this generation isn't even over yet, so its hard to say what will happen to our generation of music, it's certainly not set in stone at all.

Sent by Eben L. | 9:31 AM ET | 06-06-2008

"emo" starts with the band Slint and ends with the band Promise Ring. If it's not 90's .. it's not emo.

enough of that abused term! The Cure isn't emo... Fall Out Boy isn't emo.

Sent by Daniel | 9:32 AM ET | 06-06-2008

Look up these bands:

Horse The Band

Sky Eats Airplane

oh look at that, new genere, its metal with electro.... how bout that one?

THAT... is our sound. A mash up of nu metal and synth. That defines our culture and generation. IF some one says NIN, ya they did things like the discription. But listen to these two bands, they are a completely diffrent sound. Some people call it Electronicore, either way its loud in your face, and ours ;]

Sent by Xeb | 9:52 AM ET | 06-06-2008

neutral milk hotel

Sent by Jessie | 10:41 AM ET | 06-06-2008

In regards to the hip-hop segment, I think there is some great socially conscious rap going on now...from Talib Kweli, Mos Def and Common, but if you want to try something even less mainstream then check out Immortal Technique. He's half Dominican and half Peruvian (?) and his songs are diatribes on how the U.S. and the West raped South/Central American and the Carribean with the drug trade...he brings up some great points.

Sent by Tanya | 10:42 AM ET | 06-06-2008

Unless I am mistaken, the podcast seemed to categorize Radiohead as a "Gen Y" band but being that they first burst on the scene in the 90's and have evolved to what they are today, I question as to whether they are as beloved by the Y generation compared to Gen X'ers.

Sent by Jack | 11:03 AM ET | 06-06-2008

It's a sound that questions the very idea of "the sound of a generation". It's confluence and convergence of some sounds, revival and renewal of others, if it's anything at all. Thinking on it more, this makes sense. It's been said that ours is, to date, the most multicultural generation in the United States. The Internet, which we can barely remember being without, has given us unprecedented access to music of the past, and music styles around the world. If already we see beyond the boundaries of race, gender, and religion,it comes as no surprise that our "sound" would similarly be difficult to pin down. I don't think it's out of any sort of laziness, but from recognizing that to define one generation, one group of people, each with diverse experiences, is a difficult thing to do.

Sent by Karina | 11:30 AM ET | 06-06-2008

I might have to agree with Neutral Milk Hotel representing the bulk of the "2000" sound.

After they came up ... indie lost most of it's edge it had (not their fault). 20 year olds with beards trying to look 30 starting popping up all over the place.

pass the hummis

it's all just odd today because everyone is afraid to be something now... like ... not eating meat but also not calling yourself a vegetarian. This fear of being labeled. We're slowly becoming soft like the conservative liberal Gen X'ers before us.

There needs to be a new smart social movement with some edge. Something like the Mods meets Satanism... JK!

But really the main theme is pushing "tolerance". Our generation might be a failure .. but at least the good backlash to all this forced diversity... makes us seem nicer to each other and at least appear to be tolerant. It's a step in the right direction. Let's take another step and make it stick! Cause it can either go fowards or it can go backwards.

OBAMA 08

btw - an example of a conservative liberal is someone who listens to NPR yet censors their children from watching the news.

Sent by Daniel | 11:48 AM ET | 06-06-2008

It's kind of a glorious mess with great potential, like the inside of a pupa before a butterfly emerges.

Sent by Mike | 12:33 PM ET | 06-06-2008

Born in '82, the sound that defined my "coming-of-age" years (and that of my friends) was emo (while it was still underground) and indie rock. We rocked out to the first Dashboard Confessional EP's, Sunny Day Real Estate, Brandston and The Juliana Theory. Sure, some of my dormmates had 98 degrees posters in their rooms, but they redeemed themselved with OutKast, Destiny's Child 2nd album and Justin Timberlake's first solo album. (stop laughing!)

Sent by Tara | 12:47 PM ET | 06-06-2008

From an Ohio resident born in 1987:

One component of music that was left out of the radio discussion is the concept of an album as a complete work of art (i.e. Pink Floyd, The Beatles, and, more recently, Radiohead and the Roots). My generation's obsession with self and the individual is echoed in its infatuation with singles that don't devliver the same emotional, musical, and cultural experience as an entire album does. In short, the spirit of an entire body of work (the album itself) is lost in the modern listening community.

Furthermore, concert prices are so high now a days that, for the most part, listeners are content with experiencing music at a distance - their computers and iPods. Because of this the intimacy and communal aspect of a live concert is also lost. This was the origin of music as it is embodied in the chorus of ancient Greek theater (see Nietzsche). For my generation, music has mutated into a personal experience, which is fine because experiencing art is rather interior, but the next step of sharing thoughts, feelings, or interpretations of different tracks or performances has suddenly been deemed "useless" or "irrelevant." (In defense of my generation, however, there is very little intellectual material one can derive from horrendous songs such as Soldier Boy.) If one peers back into the history of music, however, he will see that music has a discernibly communal conception that brought people together because, utlimately, music reflects life and life reflects music. What happened to this idea?

I believe it died after the music of the 60's. Perhaps this is why Thom Yorke (who continually references the harsh loneliness of the postmodern world) sings in The Bends: "I wish it was the 60's. I wish I could be happy. I wish, I wish, I wish that something would happen." Nowadays, there exists the infant stages of reviving the 1960's with festivals such as Bonnaroo, Lolla, Cochella, etc. that reflect Woodstock and Leeds. Having attended a majority of these festivals I can tell you they are awesome experiences founded on humanity's curiously universal obsession with the sounds of this world.

That being said, I have only one request as to the direction my generation decides to drive music: "Please, oh please, gods of music, don't ever let MTV put their Viacom-soiled hands on the steering wheel."

If I had to pick (in no particular order) five bands that will define my generation:

*None of these bands will be recognized as the leading musicians of my generation, but, as was pointed out in the radio discussion, this process of realization is usually retrospective.

1. Radiohead (I will admit that Radiohead transcends generations, but temporally speaking they will always be tied to the 90's, 00's, and, who knows, the 10's)
2. The Roots (They're an amazing and ORIGINAL blend of punk, blues, and hip-hop; they're pissed off at the current world situation; they have the best live act I have ever seen in my life. What is not to like? If you haven't seen them life, do it - immediately. You will pay about 40 bucks for three hours of non-stop beats and ecletic song seletions ranging from the Eurythmics to Sir Mix Alot.)
3. Wilco (Compare Yankee Hotel Foxtrot to Sky Blue Sky and you'll understand the diversity in this band's music.)
4. Eminem (The reasons for this are obvious.)
5. Nirvana (Dido. Remember when they came out playing Rape Me at the MTV Music Awards because MTV told them they had to play Smells Like Teen Spirit?)

Other bands to consider: Pearl Jam, The Talking Heads (perhaps too early), Beck, The Flaming Lips, SUBLIME, and Rufus Wainwright.

Sent by Stephen Kienzle | 12:50 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I liked it when ASC just played songs with a short introduction. Don't find these show with all this yacking as enjoyable.

Sent by Robert | 12:53 PM ET | 06-06-2008

Two other bands I forgot to mention but are certainly note-worthy: PHISH and Arcade Fire

Sent by Stephen Kienzle | 1:06 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I think the music of generation Y is really individualized mostly due to the accessibility of the internet. There are certain albums that literally changed my perception of reality and most of them are completely unrelated in genre or style. I keep the Clash's London Calling as close to my heart as Dr. Dre's Chronic. Neither of which were actually released during my youth.

Sent by maddie | 2:11 PM ET | 06-06-2008

To expand a bit on what was said about music today making people feel "smaller" in a certain sense, many new developments in music that are important to this generation are the sort of smaller, personal, and more intimate creations like Jandek, Neutral Milk Hotel, Brian Jonestown Massacre, etc. The mystery, intrigue and individuality of this family of music defines generation Y best, because it is only held together by certain family resemblances. There will never again be a monolithic movement in music that reaches any sort of hegemony in what people listen to. Instead we have the fantastic multi-everythingism that makes life today so distinct and at times so overwhelming. The music created and listened to today cannot escape from that situation, nor should it try.

Sent by Daniel Hultgren | 2:23 PM ET | 06-06-2008

it may seem like a generalization to try to pin down a particular sound, but i think it's just this generation's attempt to identify itself so eagerly with something- something that reflects our ability to absorb/throw away many different forms of information that's being thrown at us at great speeds without seeming to completely hijack a prior generation's musical contributions...wobbling between individualism and reinvention

Sent by Cynthia | 2:40 PM ET | 06-06-2008

Animal Collective and its individual members' solo efforts are making music that will be the music I will play for my kids one day and say "this is my age of folks were contributing to the larger musical culture." They seem to have been the one group, I think, that's come the closest to creating a new genre for the 2000s.

Sent by Leigh | 3:14 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I think there are many factors to consider when you are trying to define anything about a generation. If you look at my generation (born in 86) growing up we listened to Nsync and the Backstreet boys. What happened to these artists? They weren't even considered as contenders in the race to determine the sound of our generation. I agree with Brian that we will not be able to truly determine out generation's sound until we are "older."
Growing up it was always a battle with my parents as to who should have control over the radio. They wanted to listen to 'old' music and we wanted to listen to the 'cool' stuff.
One of the major questions is, 'What defines a classic?' Who are we to judge what will be listened to and what wont by our children? For instance, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Temptations, all really good music from "back in the day" but what about the lost songs? the songs that were huge hits then and now if you played them on the radio, most people would switch the station because they would have no idea what they were listening too. So how do you determine what is a classic and what is just "old school? As our generation gets older we have to look at what music from our musical generation will be the "classics" when we get older. Wouldn't it be ironic if N*Sync and the old Britney Spears became the classics of tomorrow. Can you see the station tagline, 'playing all the oldies from N*sync and the Backstreet boys to Brittney Spears.'
If we look back on the top 40 hits from 1970 many of the songs from that list have made a come back on ipods around the world. While names such as Simon and Garfunkel ring a bell and hold a place on some of my favorite play lists, it is easy for me to say that 'Vanity Fair' (Website unavailable) wont be making an appearance on my ipod anytime soon.

All of this leads me to believe that maybe we haven't completely said "bye, bye bye" to N*sync. Maybe one day I will be driving with my children telling them 'this is my car, meaning my radio don't touch' as Larger than Life by the backstreet boys resonates through my mini-van speakers.

Sent by Amelia | 3:23 PM ET | 06-06-2008

For me ('84) I would have to say the Indigo Girls define my early and adolescent years. It's what my friends and I sing on the front porch of the lake house and can, to this day, take me immediately to the days of my youth with just a few words. You could say that the IG are just the nineties equivalent to the singer-songwriter, but I think they really defined a break between the larger than life rock ballads of the 80's and and the bare-boned emotional songs we love today Iron & Wine, Death Cab for Cutie, etc.

Sent by Kyle | 3:32 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I think that You Were Right by Built to Spill would have been a good song to play and talk about...not because it defines a generation but draws an interesting conclusion about popular songs.

Sent by Evan Strouss | 3:50 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I feel that the tastes of this generation are more fractured than those previous because of two technologies:
1) cheap digital recording
2) the internet
It used to be that you needed mind-blowing innovations to the way the instruments were being played (e.g. Hendrix) or mammoth studio budgets (Beatles, Pink Floyd). Digital recording has enabled artists to make studio-quality recordings in their homes, and the internet has enabled audiences to find their music.

Illegal file sharing was a godsend during my formative years in high school (I'm 23, Napster became big my freshman year of HS). Thanks to that the technologies listed above, we didn't have to listen to the radio anymore. The decisions of what we listened to was no longer fueled by DJs (and by association, advertisers) and record execs. My tastes in elementary school were much more cut and dry because I only knew about bands that I heard on alternative radio, which by that point was hardly "alternative" to the mainstream. With podcasts, YouTube and streaming radio, people can hear all the alt-country, underground hip-hop, indie rock, and experimental electronic they want.

That's not to say our generation doesn't have a kind of music for which we'll be remembered. It'll probably be mainstream hip-hop and American Idol. It's probably harder to put a finger on it than previous generations.

Sent by Seth | 4:15 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I agree with some earlier posts that this generation cannot have a defining sound due to the rise of the internet which has replaced the dominance of pop radio with hundreds of niche markets. There will never be a band as universally influential as the Beatles or even Nirvana. We still have defining sounds and artists but they are confined to their own niche genres. Radiohead is a great example of a very influential band with a very influential sound but they will never shape the masses the way Nirvana did.

In indie music, I would list Bright Eyes as a major influence in that niche. His many albums and his record label played a large part in transforming Omaha, Nebraska into an indie music mecca.

In pop radio, it's the producers who are defining the sound of the generation. They write radio-friendly meaningless pop lyrics and lay it on a hip-hop beat. The artists performing the songs are interchangeable and are really only chosen for their looks, not their musical talent.

Sent by Jeremy | 4:44 PM ET | 06-06-2008

For the love of god please never mention Soulja Boy again on this show, unless by some miracle he releases a CD that isn't an abomination. I can see how the Crank That phenomenon can symbolize the character of the current generation but the actual song has little or anything to do with it. Crank That was brilliant in that it was a complete media blitz that involved everyone. The dance, the style, the song, all of it was incredibly easy to remember and perform in a group/party setting. It was that community aspect that was captivating (like American Idol's voting interaction)and is the reason for the song's popularity. Without that perspective the song is an embarassment to this generation and seeing as this podcast is a music podcast should never be mentioned again.

Sent by Ian Fulmer | 6:09 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I think this quote by a previous commentor hits the mark..."I forget who it was that said this to me, but I think it explains quite a bit: "Your generation is the first generation that not only listens to (and likes) their parent's music, but their grandparents', too." - Ian"

If I had to pick music that defines my Gen X life, it would be the 'Grosse Point Blank' Soundtrack.

Sent by Carlito | 6:14 PM ET | 06-06-2008

Thanks for a great program. I still remember the day sitting in my parents' kitchen as a 14-year-old boy seeing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for the first time. It was a defining moment for my musical tastes and for my adolescence. I would be hard pressed to think of another song that has that same type of emotional energy and release as that song, but I hope a new movement of meaningful music awaits today's adolescents on the horizon.

Sent by Kevin Browne | 6:35 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I am a GenXer (born 1967). I feel my generation had many songs that could define our generation other than Nirvana (not that I don't love Nirvana). How about what came before Grunge there was New Wave and Post Punk Rock (bands like Human League, Flock of Seagulls, Police, REM, and the Cars...).

I argue that this millennium generation doesn't have an anthem yet because of how current technology delivers music instantly. People can access and preview large organized libraries of music on the Internet. Songs and albums don't have the special value it had before. The digital age is efficient, but it has diluted the magic of music discovery when independent radio, record stores and CDs use to be the sources for great music. I had to work harder to get my music so great songs held more value back in the 80's and 90's.

Sent by Contenthouse | 7:03 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to say that this generation can be defined by hip hop and glockenspeil.

Sent by Gerald | 9:07 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I feel that Amy Phillip was onto something with her opinions of a possible "next music genre". She mentioned that she feels technology is the reason we won't see a new genre. But technology is only one aspect of the issue. The biggest reason is more telling i think. "We", generation Y members, are not willing,interested, or able to expand out imaginations to include new ideas beyond the ones that we've received from the boomers and beyond. We are satisfied to reorganize rock n' roll, reorganize Blues, or reorganize country. Overall, Generation Y is more satisfied to accept its plight or ignore it rather than look beyond itself and change it. We see the idea of "rebellion" in music as a means of entertainment not a means of self realization.

Sent by D.H. Bennett | 10:44 PM ET | 06-06-2008

Some music that I think could define my generation (We won't really know for a couple more years). Beck, Sublime, Weezer, Outkast, Moby.... just to name a few.
I don't think there could be an anthem to cover all of the music that comes to mind. With Cable TV, Napster, Itunes, Satellite Radio/Internet Radio, and Youtube we all get to listen to whatever we want whenever we want. No one band let alone one song can define it all.

Sent by Satty | 10:56 PM ET | 06-06-2008

I am a member of the generation in question. As such, I have two slightly different ideas about this subject. Firstly, I personally enjoy many, many different kinds of music - when someone asks, I always say I enjoy 'good' music. But I mostly perceive my peers as listening to: modern hip-hop, American Idol, and 'Classic' rock(which doesn't really count). Those on the younger end of the generation say they listen to 'pop' (whatever that really means).

But I am really a classically trained musician. And as I look at music through formally trained eyes, I find it difficult to place any given piece of music in a given 'genre'. That is, you can pick a song, and say 'this is punk.' Than try to find another punk song - and you will find that is is ever so slightly more 'rock' than the first song. Or more jazz, or more blues, or more folk, etc. Due to(I assume) my classical perspective, I simply cannot see a given songs as being a certain style, except as people arbitrarily define it to be so.

Music is a continuum which cannot really be defined by a genre. The new generation is merely filling in the gaps between the recognized genres, while the improved technology allows each person to find music they enjoy the most. As time goes on, I predict(and hope) that even the extra popularity that certain songs and artists enjoy will disappear into the sea of individual expression.

Sent by Brianna | 11:10 PM ET | 06-06-2008

If there's any unifying link, it's that the sound of this generation is live and extremely local.

Look at Woodstock, for example. Everything about it helped to define that generation, and nothing after for that generation ever recaptured that same spark. The artists that headlined became the artists that defined that generation, and the experience from Woodstock was exported by those who attended to those who couldn't.

But our generation gets a half-dozen of those a year, at least -- SXSW, VooDoo, ACL, Pitchfork, Bonnaroo, Burning Man -- where masses of people with shared interests, in and out of music, converge across the nation. The cycle is no longer generational, not decannual, not even annual, and it's not tied to genre. There's no need to export the experience when another of the same magnitude is almost always a month or two away, relatively easy to attend, or viewable online among an online community.

We want intimate connections with our music, to localize our experiences in venue and act, and also in gatekeeper. Technology has largely bridged the gaps in production and distribution, to the point where more people are finding it acceptable to think a local independent band is at least as good as any mainstream act, but unlike the biggest acts, we can feel more closely connected to our local bands.

That feeling is not new, but the scale in which people are experiencing it really is. When any band can record any song and send it to anyone, anywhere, every band can be local. Every act can achieve that level of intimacy, every fan can experience that burst of joy from discovering something new and unique.

It's why MTV dropped out of music and promotes culture, it's why radio is fading into irrelevance, and it's why traditional music sales are falling. People aren't getting music beamed to them from a monolith anymore. The listeners have become the broadcasters. That's why the sound of our generation is so hard to define -- for the first time since broadcasting came about, it depends on whom you ask.

Sent by obo | 1:31 AM ET | 06-07-2008

what band will be considered the "next beatles"? i don't think that can happen again with a single band or artist. it doesn't matter if the band is 'good'(i.e.nirvana),or 'bad' (britney spears, perhaps?). there are now so many bands and 'sub-categories' of rock n roll music that even the most popular, well-known artists cannot become musical icons of their generation in the way that the beatles did. it didn't matter if you were a screaming adolescent girl or a disapproving old geezer,either way you would have heard of the beatles.they were known by anyone who was alive at the time (and to at least half of those deceased, too). but when 'reporting' the news of kurt cobain's suicide, "people" magazine had to explain to it's readers that nirvana was a hugely popular, multi-platinum $elling band which had even inspired the latest look on the paris runways ("grunge-chic"). they also printed photographs of massive crowds of sullen, plaid- shirted, greasy-haired fans mourning their loss as they were jonesing for their daily fix, just to prove the point that he was a bona fide celebrity, and thus justifying the coverage in their rag. so, yeah, i know lotsa music and listen to an eclectic mix of stuff, yet i still only know like one or two radiohead songs. but, then again, i just yesterday got my first computer (OK, computer! now i can know more to be confused about!). is it me, or is this 'youtube' thing a flash in the pan? just like that rock n roll music...

Sent by michelle castro | 1:55 AM ET | 06-07-2008

Thank you Joshua Glenn for better defining my generation (born in '80) than anyone else has. I have been lumped in the same generation as my brother ('67), and my cousin ('92), yet I feel no deep connection in terms of music with either. I'm convinced there is a 3- to 5-year generation gap ('78-'83) that people refuse to acknowledge.

But speaking in regards to this gap, I would say the music which defines it is from '91-'98, the years in which most of us were developing our personalities and musical tastes. Mainstream alternative and rock groups provided us with our "sound" would include: Nirvana ("Nevermind"), Metallica ("The Black Album"), Pearl Jam ("Ten", "Vs."), R.E.M. ("Automatic for the People"), Red Hot Chili Peppers ("Blood Sex Sugar Magik"), U2 ("Achtung Baby"), Green Day ("Dookie"), Smashing Pumpkins ("Siamese Dream", "Mellon Collie..."), Alanis Morissette ("Jagged Little Pill"), Radiohead ("The Bends", "OK Computer")...

(My musical tastes are slanted to the alternative and rock genres, so maybe someone else can speak for the Hip-Hop/Rap/R&B side. A few I can think of offhand might include Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg and TLC.)

Take a look at some of the lineups from Lollapalooza (1992-95), Woodstock '94 and 99 or the Warped Tour (1995-1998). You'll see some bands that crossover between lineups. It is fair to say some of those artists had an impact on the time period if there were multiple appearances.

At the same time, because of the Internet, our tastes are much more eclectic. Napster came onto the scene during my sophomore year in college, but even before that, roommates and classmates were exchanging CDs loaded with MP3s.

I would say at least 40 percent of my music is from the 60s-80s compared to the 60 percent from the last two decades. I'm willing to guess a number of my peers have a similar makeup on their iPods. (I think Brendan K. alluded to this very point.) However, I would also hypothesize that my sibilings and cousin would not boast such a mix.

I think one way of pinpointing a generation's sound would be through cover songs. I think most those who become accustom to an orginal work, are hesitant to accept covers; younger listeners, however, may come to love a cover song over the original. Or taking it a step further, if someone finds both versions acceptable, it could assist one in establishing a range of that generation's "sound."

Sent by Erin | 2:09 AM ET | 06-07-2008

Bob, with much due respect, to discount the relevance or assume "country flavored" rock in the latter 60's was "redneck" or a rock phenomenon is incorrect. Rockabilly? Sounds pretty punk now. The "hippies" had been ignited by bands that played what they wanted to with what they had at hand (with acid). Woody Guthrie/Bob Dylan bled into The Band,(country w/out a pedal steel?) and a whole flood of influences poured together including Gram Parsons/Rolling Sones, Tupelo, Wilco/Son Volt and many more . I want a microphone.

Sent by T. | 3:27 AM ET | 06-07-2008

What about the drugs?

Every generation-defining music movement has their favorite mind-altering substance. Bebop, psych-rock, metal, hardcore, grunge, rave...they are all born from a mix of politics, technology and chemicals.

Maybe we won't know the sound of Gen-Y until they pick their drug of choice?

Sent by 1974 | 5:39 AM ET | 06-07-2008

I am 33, from GenX. There seems to a be a glaring oversight in many of these posts:

GenY is NOT listenting to Gen Y music, save for EMO; it is listening to the music made by GenX. Radiohead, Wilco, Sonic Youth, Smashing Pumpkins, U2, Beck, etc. are all GenX. Radiohead came out with "Creep" in 1992, I believe; they aren't GenY at all. So GenY is clearly embracing and loving the GenX sound. Just about all of the bands mentioned above that GenY says it listens to were artists I listened to in college. Sufjan Stevens is on the border of both generations, i believe.

Gen Y music is anything created by those who are 28 yrs old and younger: that would be EMO and American Idol stuff--all these other bands mentioned above (the music of today) are actually in their 30's and up! Thus it obvious the sound of Gen Y music is just beginning to form, and it's obvious that it will be heavily influenced by all of the GenX music that is heard today.

Sent by CFA | 10:35 AM ET | 06-07-2008

Bob, I completely agree with what you said about my generation listening to their parents, grandparents, etc. music. I have friends that love The Beatles more than any "modern" band. Myself, I still listen to DC Punk. But, the internet has completely revolutionized the way we listen and find music. As a member of this generation, I don't think there's a general sound at all. And I don't think there ever will be. There is no all-encompassing American Culture anymore. The closest things we have to that would be songs like "soulja boy" or American Idol. And honestly, I do not want to be defined by either of those things.
I have to say, I take high offense to some of these comments. Emo did not start with us; it started with you Gen Xers. Emo started in the 80s, when we were all being born.
What I truly do love about my generation (at least the college music, "underground" scene) is how we borrow from absolutely everything before us- with the exception of noise (which would be so awesome if my generation was defined by that). We don't have the whole "throw everything out and start again" mindset that bands had in the other musical movements. I think that idea right there is going to make some great music, and already is.
There are way too many ideas I would like to elaborate on, and I can't put them down in to words very well. I do think it would've been great if you had an actual member of my generation on the show to talk with. (You've got interns, right? if not, I'll gladly take up the position.)

Overall, great show!

Sent by Lindsay | 11:45 AM ET | 06-07-2008

a transition toward new and non-traditional instrumentation usually in the form of a computer? maybe its the 'DJ' as a performer, either solo or part of a band? A theme from a number of posts is borrowing from previous generations, eclecticism, mash-ups etc. I guess DJs best exemplify this?

I don't claim this to be the only answer but I think it is an interesting part of the puzzle that I haven't seen yet on this thread: the lap-top apple computer as a musical instrument. I go to a lot of shows of many genres and I keep seeing laptops and other electronic devices being widely incorporated into every musical style...hip hop, electronica, various forms of jazz and indie rock, bringing electronics on stage alongside guitars/drums/bass. Of course previous generations didn't have laptops (and they might have used them had they existed) just a thought.

Sent by Steve | 11:56 AM ET | 06-07-2008

Warren Ellis hits on some of this:
http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=6008

"Not that it'll happen in a big wave next time. The other interesting thing is the immediacy and fractioning of musical movements. In (say) 1988, you could feel it coming. (In actual fact, there were two things coming -- in addition to acid, there was a reinvention of guitar music). Genesis P-Orridge has talked about this a little bit, the weird surge in the air that took him to Jack The Tab. In those days, big cultural shifts were a slow wave passing over the planet, moving at the speed of postage and club nights and the occasional phone call. And they came, at best, one or two at a time. And they caught up everybody.

What's changed is the speed of communication and the speed at which new music can be experienced. So today we no longer wait for the breakers to hit every 11 years (roughly: rock, 55. Psychedelia, 66. Punk, 77. Acid, 1988). Instead, micro-movements pop up every month. Some new eddy in the hardcore continuum, MySpacey chavpop, The Fonal Sound, British "dark folk," the spooktronics crowd being drawn to the Miasmah label (and too many more to mention)... far more plentiful than "scenes" in the past, geographically scattered and inspiring the sort of mad group inspiration and evolution that you used to only find at the top of big New Sound cultural events."

Sent by obo | 4:14 PM ET | 06-07-2008

I think that the selections on the site are AWFUL representations of the generations influences. It appears to be a mishmash of genres, with no particular theme or unifying feeling. Personally, some albums and artists that come to mind include:

(please note these are more early influences...albums and bands that sort of dictate the generations taste NOW)

weezer's blue album
green day's dookie
radiohead's ok computer
snoop dogg & dre
metallica
the stereo
smashing pumpkins
mineral
sunny day real estate
the rentals
nada surf
superdrag

basically, the "charlie brown" type of bands and music that said to us twenty-somethings, "hey, we're nerdy, self-deprecating and kind of disillusioned, but we're really stoked about that." none of this talk about classic rock or electro-metal. seriously. these albums and artists have, when combined now with my listening to older music and more obscure stuff like 1920's blues field recordings, led me to bands like fleet foxes, okkervil river, sunset r1/2own, spokane, magnolia electric co., and beirut (who still owes me fifty bucks.) i think that's at least a little more appropriate.

Sent by matt | 6:15 PM ET | 06-07-2008

I'm 49, so I've been through..well, all of the generations discussed. I'd say today's generation is marked by musical diversity - not just the business in general, but what any given individual might listen to. They get it cheap (or free), consume it quickly, and move on to something else. It seems the relevant question should be whether ANY song or group of songs will actually define this generation. Just because its happened with previous generations may not necessarily mean it will happen with this one. As a long-time music lover, though, I think this diversity is fantastic! I find great new music all the time!

Sent by Blaine | 7:42 PM ET | 06-07-2008

There is a clear sound to this generation and it's called "Cut & Paste." I really didn't appreciate the focus on people like Soldier Boy and Kelly Clarkson, when they are pretty clearly not the ones who are influencing other musicians.
"Cut and Paste" can be seen in Hip Hop and punk and everything else. From Kanye West to Green day, who are both influencing other groups in the sound but borrowing a lot from past sounds. The trend is the imitation and the references that the musician drops like calling cards to other bands.
Bands like Weezer, Rilo Kiley, and even Kanye West. These groups sound like other bands that's why we like them, but the individual twist makes it fresh. Bands like Sigur R??s are the bands that are going to influence other generations not Kelly Clarkson. Even bands like belle & Sebastian and Modest Mouse are the blending of sounds that make this generations music so interesting.
Normally like your show but this episode was off. I recommend doing a little more research like check out websites like Last.FM to see what this generation listen. Don't ask a bunch of people who grew up in different generations to get your information. Because the trend as seen from the past from the Velvet Underground to the Replacements it's not what is popular necessarily that sets the trends and influences the next generation of musicians.

Sent by Daniel Virtue | 11:29 PM ET | 06-07-2008

Someone's got it all wrong...
Baby Boomers had DISCO...
Gen X-ers had New Age, New Wave, Pop, Punk, and the beginnings of RAP.
Gen Y has RAP, alternative, bubble-gum Pop, and "classic rock" meaning recycled 60's, 70s and 80s music.
No one new has come out with anything good in a decade so they just keep recycling the better old stuff.

Sent by Shar | 2:09 AM ET | 06-08-2008

I was born in '55, so,,, yes, I am part of the generation that created the debt, and global pollution. Sorry! But when I was in my formative years,,,, David Bowie, Lou Reed, Todd Rundgren (Todd Is Godd!) and from my formative Gay years,,,, The Divine Ms M! Yes, for a few years I was a WEHO Queer! And then morphed into ROQ of the Eighties! Now, in my 50's...... ughh, i do cruise iTunes, and All Songs Considered for something new,,,, but find it really hard to fall in love with anything new. I hope I find it!! NOw, when I need to hear some great music, I turn back to David Bowie, Lou Reed and Todd Rundgren (TODD is still GODD). I now live in Xiamen, China, and look forward to the new All Songs Download!!!!! And just last week, I discovered the BBC's Tom Robinson Introduces,,,,,,, (oh yeah, I still sing because I'm glad to be gay!!!!)

Sent by Joe Hoffman | 4:29 AM ET | 06-08-2008

I was born in 1980. Can I please be adopted by another generation? Please...I'll take any generation, just not mine! The first half of my generation is fine, but those younger kids? Their music is crap. Stale, boring and lifeless. I haven't bought anything new in a long time. I look to the bands of the 70s and 80s. The Faces, Stones, Bowie, T.Rex, New York Dolls. Only a few modern acts are worth the time it takes to download it!

I graduated high school in 1999, and without a doubt, Gangsta Rap was everywhere! Snoop and Dr. Dre were the soundtracks at EVERY party along with Biggie Smalls and Tupac.

My favorite bands were all British. How could the Brit-pop bands like Oasis, Pulp, Suede, the Verve and Blur be ignored? Remember Oasis selling out Wembley Stadium two days in a row? Or what about trip-hop? Certainly, artists like Tricky, Massive Attack and Portishead influence artists like MIA...but hasn't she already faded into obscurity with Franz Ferdinand and OK Go?

Sent by Erik | 4:09 PM ET | 06-08-2008

I was really disappointed by this presentation. This was like watching a bunch of 80 year old rich white men discuss what it's like to be a black person in America today. It was a poor choice to choose individuals who are not even part of the generation you are discussing. Instead of discussing the music of gen-y the discussion quickly turned into each commentators reasons why they thought their generation's music was better, purer, more "ong-st" driven (which I believe was an attempt to say angst driven) then what is around today.
Furthermore the discussion reached its height of irrelevance when the topic of hip-hop was brought up. At this point, the conversation did really turn into insulated people talking about something they had no reason to be discussing. The thought that Soulja boy defines what hip-hop is was the most ridiculous thing I have heard. It seemed strange how the discussion ce