Who is the most important band of our generation?

musicismylife78

Other than Nirvana, Id say it has to be Radiohead.

Danimal_Fweeka

Agreed. :thumbup:

Johnny Aggro

Musically Radiohead up there, and soically Nirvana.

But to tick both the boxes i think RATM fit the bill

intodeep

nickelback or creed not sure

Bronx Bombers

Wobbie

musicismylife78 wrote:

Other than Nirvana, Id say it has to be Radiohead.

puh-leese.

nickburrows14

Pearl Jam. No questions asked. End of thread. Move on people, nothing to see here......

DewieCox

Not sure....there have been huge, boundary pushing bands, but none of them have been all that influential. I think Nirvana breaking the floodgates for mainstream acceptance of alternative music makes them the clear front runners, but aside from a few select bands nobody is aping their sound the way they have with the Beatles, Zep, Floyd or Sabbath. Nirvana's effect on popular music is hard to equate, but I don't think any band has had and effect as big as they did, from Teen Spirit to the way Cobains suicide impacted the music world.

Pearl Jam, among others, have been immensely successful, but they didn't start any big movements or really expand any musical limits of rock an roll.

South of Seattle

I might throw the White Stripes in there.

There seemed to be at the forefront of the two piece bands and seemingly after they came out we had a run of bands named "The" something.

Everyone's generation is different on here so there probably will be no "correct" or best answer until we have those boundaries drawn.

DewieCox

South of Seattle wrote:

I might throw the White Stripes in there.

There seemed to be at the forefront of the two piece bands and seemingly after they came out we had a run of bands named "The" something.

Everyone's generation is different on here so there probably will be no "correct" or best answer until we have those boundaries drawn.

Yeah, Jack White is definitely a name that needs mentioned here.

I'm not totally aware of the timeline but I've always credited The Strokes with kinda launching the garage rock resurgence inn the early 2000s. It was kinda weird how all those "the" bands popped up at once. Surely most of them had band names before any of them were household names.


It is hard to define a generation when were talking about a pretty broad age range here. It's kinda 2 generations were talking about, but either way, for my decision I think Nirvana's impact is still in effect about as much as any more recent bands.

South of Seattle

DewieCox wrote:

South of Seattle wrote:

I might throw the White Stripes in there.

There seemed to be at the forefront of the two piece bands and seemingly after they came out we had a run of bands named "The" something.

Everyone's generation is different on here so there probably will be no "correct" or best answer until we have those boundaries drawn.

Yeah, Jack White is definitely a name that needs mentioned here.

I'm not totally aware of the timeline but I've always credited The Strokes with kinda launching the garage rock resurgence inn the early 2000s. It was kinda weird how all those "the" bands popped up at once. Surely most of them had band names before any of them were household names.


It is hard to define a generation when were talking about a pretty broad age range here. It's kinda 2 generations were talking about, but either way, for my decision I think Nirvana's impact is still in effect about as much as any more recent bands.

Totally.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I know there are mixed feelings about them... but in terms of 'importance'... U2 has got to be at, or at least near, the top of that list.

Tim Simmons

Nirvana or Radiohead.

Nirvana's impact was more immediate and affected the short term influence. I guess it legitimized and brought mainstream the underground. So I guess you can credit them for giving most indie and alternative bands for the last 25 years a shot.

I think Radiohead has been more of the gold standard since 97 which is about the time that grunge and whatever went derivative and stale. Since then Radiohead has been the band everyone aspires to be in terms of achieving an artistic vision and pushing boundaries musically and being successful while doing it. "Doing a Kid A" seems to be the go to phrase for describing shifts in bands sound since 2001. And despite mixed options on their past few years of material, I think they a still the biggest still existing band in the world in terms of acclaim + success (for comparison, The Stones are huge, but you would be hard pressed to say they aren't just a greatest hits band at this stage. They may have influence still, it's pretty much only stuff they did before 77, outside of a tour, they really haven't been critically relevant for a long time).

facepollution

As someone else said I think we're probably talking about 2 different generations here. For the 90's it would have to be Nirvana, not because they were the best or anything like that, but they really did open the floodgates for everyone. I think their idea of artistic integrity still influences today.

For the 00's........I dunno, the biggest rock bands right now are still mostly from the 80's/90's. I mean, Radiohead still wield a hell of a lot of clout in the music industry. I have various feelings as to why. More than anything I don't think they could have done any wrong after OK Computer, it was such a massive and triumphant leap from The Bends that I think it took a lot of people by surprise, and they wanted to be 'ready' for the next record, and it kind of snowballed from there. I'm not commenting on the quality of their post-OK Computer output, but I can't help but call bullshit on their least accessible music suddenly becoming massive.

Tim Simmons

Their least accessible music (Kid A, King of Limbs) has proven the fusion of electronic sounds and dance music to rock is possible and interesting. The artists who remix Radiohead are so clearly influenced by Radiohead. They are influencing a whole slew of underground artists now and I don't think the fruits of that influence will be seen very clearly for some time.

facepollution

Tim Simmons wrote:

Their least accessible music (Kid A, King of Limbs) has proven the fusion of electronic sounds and dance music to rock is possible and interesting. The artists who remix Radiohead are so clearly influenced by Radiohead. They are influencing a whole slew of underground artists now and I don't think the fruits of that influence will be seen very clearly for some time.

Like I said, I'm not commenting on it in terms of content. But in my mind it was kind of the birth of the hipster movement. And it's not difficult to see why it was so popular, what was the alternative at the time? Creed?! LIMP BIZKIT?! I just don't buy the fact that the fickle record buying public suddenly had this really progressive taste - I think there were a lot of sheep around at the time, in fact I knew a lot of them.

DewieCox

Radiohead has definitely helped blur the edges of what "rock" music can be but my argument against them is that not many bands have followed them. They are definitely one of the most important bands of the modern era without a doubt and while I agree with the "doing a Kid A" thing, just not hearing many bands actually doing it. IMO Ok Comp, Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows have a bigger impact on other bands than stuff like Amnesiac and King of Limbs. Following is too strong of a word, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, aren't there more successful artists doing the bleeps and bloops style stuff.

doujo

Metallica

SatansFuton

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I know there are mixed feelings about them... but in terms of 'importance'... U2 has got to be at, or at least near, the top of that list.

Yeah, I'm one of those that has mixed feelings, but I don't think there's much arguing that.

As for Radiohead



OK, I like a lot of their stuff. I've never been able to get into Pablo Honey, but somebody told me they disowned that or something, is that true? I like The Bends through Hail To The Thief, and one Thom solo song I can't remember the name of, which is quite a bit of their catalog, so I'd say they're a pretty important band in my opinion, I just think their so uneven, and a bunch of their stuff just lame. And sad/weird/mopey Thom wears a little thin with me sometimes. He should buy a puppy or something.

dimitrispearljam

U2

josevolution

The Clash

SatansFuton

josevolution wrote:

The Clash

Yeah. Wait, what are the boundaries for generation here?

I was assuming we were going by Generation Y - '80-'00

josevolution

SatansFuton wrote:

josevolution wrote:

The Clash

Yeah. Wait, what are the boundaries for generation here?

I was assuming we were going by Generation Y - '80-'00

I agree if you go from 77 to 83 i have to go with The Clash and i know the Sex Pistols where there also but i'm going with Clash

facepollution

U2 haven't had a relevant album out in years.

Seems there's a lot of clutching at straws in this thread, nobody wants to admit that there hasn't really been a defining band in the last ten years or so, at least not in terms of what we understand rock to be.

WhyGo91

The OP needs to edit the question a little bit. There are many different generations of fans on these forums. For example, I'm in my 20's, not in my 40's when "your" generation was influenced by bands like PJ, Nirvana, Radiohead, and other groups that were in younger years. For my generation (people around my age), some of the most important bands to come around are My Morning Jacket, The Strokes, The White Stripes, Kings of Leon, Gaslight Anthem, Incubus, Cage the Elephant.

South of Seattle

Also you could argue the importance of N.W.A to our generation as well.

A band like Sublime was important in a negative way. We got a lot of shitty rap/rock/reggae bands

SatansFuton

facepollution wrote:

U2 haven't had a relevant album out in years.

Seems there's a lot of clutching at straws in this thread, nobody wants to admit that there hasn't really been a defining band in the last ten years or so, at least not in terms of what we understand rock to be.

Neither has Pearl Jam. I didn't see where it said they still have to be relevant. Or anything about the last 10 years. I haven't cared for much music the last 10 years, but I have no clue if any of them are relevant. My listening habits are kid of dated and I'm not expert on what's going on today. I thought we were naming influential bands of the past 30 years or so, and they all fit the bill.

facepollution

SatansFuton wrote:

Neither has Pearl Jam. I didn't see where it said they still have to be relevant. Or anything about the last 10 years. I haven't cared for much music the last 10 years, but I have no clue if any of them are relevant. My listening habits are kid of dated and I'm not expert on what's going on today. I thought we were naming influential bands of the past 30 years or so, and they all fit the bill.

How long is a 'generation'?! If we're going to include the 90's or 80's then we're looking at 23+ years, which seems a bit long.....no? I guess I look at music more in terms of cycles, and whilst I love a load of the bands listed, I associate them with another era.

SatansFuton

facepollution wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

Neither has Pearl Jam. I didn't see where it said they still have to be relevant. Or anything about the last 10 years. I haven't cared for much music the last 10 years, but I have no clue if any of them are relevant. My listening habits are kid of dated and I'm not expert on what's going on today. I thought we were naming influential bands of the past 30 years or so, and they all fit the bill.

How long is a 'generation'?! If we're going to include the 90's or 80's then we're looking at 23+ years, which seems a bit long.....no? I guess I look at music more in terms of cycles, and whilst I love a load of the bands listed, I associate them with another era.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I thought we were talking Generation Y, which is 1980-2000, but a few bands earlier than that have popped up. So I don't know.

facepollution

SatansFuton wrote:

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I thought we were talking Generation Y, which is 1980-2000, but a few bands earlier than that have popped up. So I don't know.

Who knows....I suppose in my mind the decades are so clearly defined in terms of styles and genres that it's easier to just cut them off there rather than trying to decide on a boundary determined by people's ages (which are all different!).

Thirty Bills Unpaid

facepollution wrote:

U2 haven't had a relevant album out in years.

Seems there's a lot of clutching at straws in this thread, nobody wants to admit that there hasn't really been a defining band in the last ten years or so, at least not in terms of what we understand rock to be.

I wouldn't argue your points, but their legacy and impact are much more profound than any of the bands mentioned so far in this thread.