Radiohead read on

Well dynamics are a big part of it.  Certainly not all.   If it does not sound good enough, well then either don't listen or figure out a way to make it better.

Muse is another more recent group that has produced a lot of good more artsy type rock in recent years and met with success along the lines of Radiohead.  Many regard Steven Wilson as the modern champion of progressive rock.  Gotta admire Radiohead's penchant to experiment and push boundaries though, much like The  Beatles did, even if the results are perhaps a bit more uneven or esoteric.

The White Stripes is the more recent group that I find also seldom fails me of late for just plain and simple good rock.   Their sound is more like a modern take on stripped down Led Zeppelin at their best.

The usual in regards to how modern recordings are made in an attempt to please as many listeners as possible. Recording industry would have real problems if they did not keep up with the times and do that. FBOFW. Most Radiohead is an interesting listen beyond just dynamics.

Another group that I like a lot in recent years with a penchant for experimentation and delivering good results on their recordings is The Flaming Lips. These guys have been around forever and do not get the credit or recognition they deserve IMHO most likely because they can get really far out there at times and never seem deterred which I admire. They can make Pink Floyd in their early days seem downright mainstream.  Their album "Embryonic"  is perhaps my favorite.   It is to music of its time kinda what the Beatles White Album was back in its day.

If I understand the DR charts correctly, the number represents the difference between the loudest and softest sounds per release and also shows similar best and worst track DR.

It tells you nothing for example about transient dynamics and what one might be hearing otherwise with this approach. The people who make these recordings want you to hear certain things in the mix a certain way. And be able to hear it on the devices that most people have to work with. Its an art and not a pure science.

To date I have found not much correlation between my appreciation of a recording and the numbers in this DR DB, although it is useful to help find recordings that might excel in dynamic range that one might not otherwise.
So its a useful tool but not enough to determine what to listen to or not. At least for me. YMMV.

One last point is I recall the CD Death Magnetic by Metallica to be one of the worst DR ratings at the time a couple years back. Someone sent me the CD in the mail to give a listen. Thing is for an audiophile to listen to this CD the way intended, loudly, requires a VERY good system. Listening to this CD as intended without ear bleed or negatively affecting how most other more normal CDs sound is an extremely difficult audiophile challenge I would say. There is little leeway for any added distortion to be introduced. But I have found it to be a useful test CD for my system in that regard and there is a lot of good stuff on it (if one likes what Metallica does in general of course) and the sound of my setup is better than ever I would say overall for the effort .

Metallica Death Magnetic 2008 03 02 04 lossless CD

I’m pretty sure this is the one I have. Pretty bad but some in the DR DB now show as 0 0 0 (you can sort using the column headers to see the best and worst in the DB at the top of the list easily). The dozen or so worst overall are now 0 0 0 ie no measured dynamic range. Turn these up loud and your amp and speakers gets quite a steady workout with no relief it would seem. That is if they survive, as well as your ears. Rock on!

All true except actually you can get into trouble a lot faster because things are recorded louder to start and there are fewer valleys between the peaks which means when the loudest parts achieve the desired SPL when played the amp and speakers are working harder overall than they would be otherwise in that the average volume level in the recording is higher. Louder/higher volume levels overall mean more work for amp and speakers to do. So hifi setups that are not able to deal with high volume levels as well to start will feel more strain at a particular max SPL of volume. What was previously perhaps clipping, compression and distortion in just a few dynamic peaks is now more prevalent. That’s why I say it takes a bigger better hifi to play a loud CD well at a certain maximum SPL level than a less loud one. A lot of modern under powered hifis driving smaller inefficient speakers that are designed for extended bass out of a smaller package, as is very popular these days, will start to clip, compress and distort sooner making things even worse. Even more reason for many audiophiles to hate these kinds of recordings.

Sure what goes into the cd release can be what's compressed versus original masters I'm sure in many cases.  

Some may have waveforms clipped as well at some stage.  Dr measurements alone do not tell you that but not uncommon at least in many modern pop releases I'm sure.

Tost I have a dbx 3BX sitting idle in my storage room. Its a lovely classic and fun piece. Maybe I’ll hook it back up again someday but have not felt the urge.   It's from my aforementioned obsessed with DR period.

Check out some UB40 for a group whose recordings score consistently high in DR.