We are never going to agree on this. Radiohead for me lost it after Ok Computer, U2s best stuff was 1984 to 1987, no one has really sparked a musical shift globally since Nirvana and that was years ago. For me PJ have lasted the distance, said fuck you to the music industry machine and are still the benchmark for a lot of bands. Generations differ on here and being 40 I see things differently from a 20 year old. I don't see a band at the minute doing anything really exciting and I feel sorry for this generation for not having that in their lives. Maybe I'm just getting old.
again..there is no other answer than u2....for me is pearl jam and the cure....but..it is how it is
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
again..there is no other answer than u2....for me is pearl jam and the cure....but..it is how it is
I agree. Not necessarily my 'personal favourite' as a choice... but these guys had a profound social and political impact and still do to some degree. I might be confused by the question... but some of these other bands- despite being big- pale in comparison if one was to be objective.
Sure, they've been one of, if not he biggest band, but I don't think it's unquestionable that U2 is the most important band of the last 30 years. I don't think their impact as far as being a huge musical influence is big enough for that.
Sure, they've been one of, if not he biggest band, but I don't think it's unquestionable that U2 is the most important band of the last 30 years. I don't think their impact as far as being a huge musical influence is big enough for that.
But the thread title isn't 'influential band'... it's 'most important' band. To me that implies the band with the loudest voice. They aren't the Beatles... but for the last two decades... they're as close as we got (in my humble opinion).
Generations are pretty straight forward. Im in my twenties. My grandparents were the Greatest generation. My parents were boomers. My older cousins were Gen X, as were Kurt, Ed, Billy, Layne and Chris. Im a Gen Y'er. Born just after the X generation ended.
For our generation I think its pretty clear the biggest and most important band has been Nirvana. I think its sort of silly to argue that its any other band. As I said, other than them, Radiohead has been highly important.
Nirvana's impact and importance was so huge I think it had an impact on the Y's as well. Theres an emotional connection to them and the lyrics than no band really has equaled, even in the nearly 20 years since Kurt died
Nirvana just because they completely changed the landscape. Their impact on music and pop culture is still being felt today. Try naming another band in the last 20 years that has had the same kind of impact. You can't.
And U2 because they're freakin' U2. End of debate. Yea, their recorded output in the last 10 years has been shoddy, although I thought No Line on the Horizon was an excellent return to form. The number of bands who have been influenced by them is a very long list, and there are even a few who have ripped off their sound entirely (Coldplay, Golden State). Most bands are lucky to make even one landmark album that resonates across multiple generations. U2 has made at least three (War, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby). You could even throw All That You Can't Leave Behind in there as well. It may not be their best work, but there's no denying how massive that album was when it came out, spawning 4 hit singles and a hugely successful tour. They also have an impressive ability to re-define large scale touring with insanely ambitious productions that put most other stadium-sized bands to shame. (Zoo TV is still the most mind-blowing stadium tour I`ve ever witnessed). Think U2 are a dinosaur act that only old people listen to? Think again. My buddy's 13 year-old daughter recently discovered their music on Youtube and went out and bought all their records. Yup, there`s still hope for today`s youth.
"I try my best to chug, stomp, weep, whisper, moan, wheeze, scat, blurt, rage, whine, and seduce. With my voice I can sound like a girl, the boogieman, a Theremin, a cherry bomb, a clown, a doctor, a murderer. I can be tribal. Ironic. Or disturbed. My voice is really my instrument."
1. I see people saying "doing the 'Kid A'" thing, regarding how Radiohead completely changed their sound. In my opinion, I see Radiohead pulling an "Achtung Baby," with the way U2 completely changing their sound and that album being one of the biggest in music history, plus the huge tour to follow. You didn't really hear any indication U2 were going that way on "Rattle and Hum," besides "God Part II." With Radiohead, you can kind of hear early indications on "OK Computer" of the direction they eventually headed toward with "Kid A," like on "Fitter Happier."
2. For me in my early 20s, the bands I closely associate with my generation that I see as important are The Strokes and The White Stripes. Both bands hit the mainstream in 2001, with The Strokes' great debut album and "White Blood Cells" being released. The White Stripes really hit it big with "Elephant" in 2003.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
And U2 because they're freakin' U2. End of debate. Yea, their recorded output in the last 10 years has been shoddy, although I thought No Line on the Horizon was an excellent return to form. The number of bands who have been influenced by them is a very long list, and there are even a few who have ripped off their sound entirely (Coldplay, Golden State). Most bands are lucky to make even one landmark album that resonates across multiple generations. U2 has made at least three (War, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby). You could even throw All That You Can't Leave Behind in there as well. It may not be their best work, but there's no denying how massive that album was when it came out, spawning 4 hit singles and a hugely successful tour. They also have an impressive ability to re-define large scale touring with insanely ambitious productions that put most other stadium-sized bands to shame. (Zoo TV is still the most mind-blowing stadium tour I`ve ever witnessed). Think U2 are a dinosaur act that only old people listen to? Think again. My buddy's 13 year-old daughter recently discovered their music on Youtube and went out and bought all their records. Yup, there`s still hope for today`s youth.
I remember hearing "Beautiful Day" when it was released and really loving it. That was my intro to U2. I was 9 when that song and album came out. I had never heard of them before. I just wish I got that album when it came out. Don't know what took me so long to get into U2; I didn't start listening to them until the end of 2007, when I bought "The Joshua Tree."
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
1. I see people saying "doing the 'Kid A'" thing, regarding how Radiohead completely changed their sound. In my opinion, I see Radiohead pulling an "Achtung Baby," with the way U2 completely changing their sound and that album being one of the biggest in music history, plus the huge tour to follow. You didn't really hear any indication U2 were going that way on "Rattle and Hum," besides "God Part II." With Radiohead, you can kind of hear early indications on "OK Computer" of the direction they eventually headed toward with "Kid A," like on "Fitter Happier."
2. For me in my early 20s, the bands I closely associate with my generation that I see as important are The Strokes and The White Stripes. Both bands hit the mainstream in 2001, with The Strokes' great debut album and "White Blood Cells" being released. The White Stripes really hit it big with "Elephant" in 2003.
strokes and White Stripes are huge. Strokes especially. Is This It changed the game.
U2 never were as experimental and avantegarde as radiohead is and was. I love u2, but they stay pretty confined in a certain sound and area. Radiohead just completely changed their formula. A rock band making a rock album without guitars? The way Thoms lyrics and the music itself addresses themes of globalization and capitalism and modern societal alienation is pretty unparralleled.
The whole pay what you want thing for In Rainbows. The almost religious fervor they inspire among fans. the willingness to do absolutely anything they want at all times with every single project, the refusal to cater to or bow down to critics or fans.
Radiohead are the perfect example of what every band should be.
I think the answer is, other than Nirvana, clearly Radiohead.
1. I see people saying "doing the 'Kid A'" thing, regarding how Radiohead completely changed their sound. In my opinion, I see Radiohead pulling an "Achtung Baby," with the way U2 completely changing their sound and that album being one of the biggest in music history, plus the huge tour to follow. You didn't really hear any indication U2 were going that way on "Rattle and Hum," besides "God Part II." With Radiohead, you can kind of hear early indications on "OK Computer" of the direction they eventually headed toward with "Kid A," like on "Fitter Happier."
2. For me in my early 20s, the bands I closely associate with my generation that I see as important are The Strokes and The White Stripes. Both bands hit the mainstream in 2001, with The Strokes' great debut album and "White Blood Cells" being released. The White Stripes really hit it big with "Elephant" in 2003.
strokes and White Stripes are huge. Strokes especially. Is This It changed the game.
U2 never were as experimental and avantegarde as radiohead is and was. I love u2, but they stay pretty confined in a certain sound and area. Radiohead just completely changed their formula. A rock band making a rock album without guitars? The way Thoms lyrics and the music itself addresses themes of globalization and capitalism and modern societal alienation is pretty unparralleled.
The whole pay what you want thing for In Rainbows. The almost religious fervor they inspire among fans. the willingness to do absolutely anything they want at all times with every single project, the refusal to cater to or bow down to critics or fans.
Radiohead are the perfect example of what every band should be.
I think the answer is, other than Nirvana, clearly Radiohead.
You could say Radiohead pulled a Neil Young. Neil completely changed his sound in the early eighties.
Am I the only one who has listened to all of Radiohead's albums and just don't get the hype? There are some good songs, don't get me wrong, but for me, it's mostly boring and unlistenable.
The answer to the OP's orginal question is Pearl Jam. History will be kind to them I think. Similar to the way history has been kind to the Beatles & Uncle Neil. They may not be in the mainstream (by design) or have hit singles (would any of us here really want them to have #1 singles anymore? Tickets would be even harder to come by than they already are).
I can understand why Nirvana is thrown into the conversation but they just weren't around long enough to qualify for the topic, in my opinion.
U2 is just not "important" enough I think. They just write pop songs in the last 10-15 years with no clear message. Now I'll clarify that by saying I can't even listen to anything past Achtung Baby so if I'm wrong and proven to be I'll own up to that.
Metallica was mentioned above and all I can say to that is: No.
"Not only do you have sunshine but you have better thunder...fuckers." -Ed, Phx 10/21/00
PJ * 10/21/00 - Phx * 6/7/03 - Phx * 6/29/06 - Milwaukee * 6/30/06 - Milwaukee * 11/19/13 - Phx *
EV * 11/4/12 - Phx, AZ *
U2 never were as experimental and avantegarde as radiohead is and was. I love u2, but they stay pretty confined in a certain sound and area. Radiohead just completely changed their formula. A rock band making a rock album without guitars? The way Thoms lyrics and the music itself addresses themes of globalization and capitalism and modern societal alienation is pretty unparralleled.
The whole pay what you want thing for In Rainbows. The almost religious fervor they inspire among fans. the willingness to do absolutely anything they want at all times with every single project, the refusal to cater to or bow down to critics or fans.
Radiohead are the perfect example of what every band should be.
I think the answer is, other than Nirvana, clearly Radiohead.
Some good points about Radiohead here, and they certainly deserve to be in the conversation. However, just because a band is avant garde and experimental doesn't necessarily put them above anyone else in terms of cultural impact or importance. I love Radiohead, but it kinda bothers me that they've become so critic proof. Those guys could put out an album of them farting into a microphone, and hipsters and critics everywhere would call it "cutting edge", "brilliant", and "avant garde". When in reality, some of their stuff is actually quite boring in my opinion. King of Limbs has a couple of really great songs, but the rest of that album is an absolute snooze-fest. Is U2 a better band than Radiohead? That's debatable. But in terms of worldwide cultural impact over a long period, I'd argue that U2 are in a league of their own.
"I try my best to chug, stomp, weep, whisper, moan, wheeze, scat, blurt, rage, whine, and seduce. With my voice I can sound like a girl, the boogieman, a Theremin, a cherry bomb, a clown, a doctor, a murderer. I can be tribal. Ironic. Or disturbed. My voice is really my instrument."
Sure, they've been one of, if not he biggest band, but I don't think it's unquestionable that U2 is the most important band of the last 30 years. I don't think their impact as far as being a huge musical influence is big enough for that.
But the thread title isn't 'influential band'... it's 'most important' band. To me that implies the band with the loudest voice. They aren't the Beatles... but for the last two decades... they're as close as we got (in my humble opinion).
When it comes to music and bands, influence, both musical and cultural,is a huge part of what makes them important.
Am I the only one who has listened to all of Radiohead's albums and just don't get the hype? There are some good songs, don't get me wrong, but for me, it's mostly boring and unlistenable.
The answer to the OP's orginal question is Pearl Jam. History will be kind to them I think. Similar to the way history has been kind to the Beatles & Uncle Neil. They may not be in the mainstream (by design) or have hit singles (would any of us here really want them to have #1 singles anymore? Tickets would be even harder to come by than they already are).
I can understand why Nirvana is thrown into the conversation but they just weren't around long enough to qualify for the topic, in my opinion.
U2 is just not "important" enough I think. They just write pop songs in the last 10-15 years with no clear message. Now I'll clarify that by saying I can't even listen to anything past Achtung Baby so if I'm wrong and proven to be I'll own up to that.
Metallica was mentioned above and all I can say to that is: No.
You're letting your love for PJ blind you. No way are they as important any other band that you mention. 25 years in NY and the Beatles were viewed among the greatest artists ever. U2 is huge throughout the world and have had pretty huge social impact. Metallica is probably the most influential metal band this side of Black Sabbath and pretty well unquestionably the most recognizable name.
The fact that Nirvana was only around for a short time almost strengthens their argument. The effect they had on music and pop culture in only 3 years is almost unprecedented.
1. I see people saying "doing the 'Kid A'" thing, regarding how Radiohead completely changed their sound. In my opinion, I see Radiohead pulling an "Achtung Baby," with the way U2 completely changing their sound and that album being one of the biggest in music history, plus the huge tour to follow. You didn't really hear any indication U2 were going that way on "Rattle and Hum," besides "God Part II." With Radiohead, you can kind of hear early indications on "OK Computer" of the direction they eventually headed toward with "Kid A," like on "Fitter Happier."
2. For me in my early 20s, the bands I closely associate with my generation that I see as important are The Strokes and The White Stripes. Both bands hit the mainstream in 2001, with The Strokes' great debut album and "White Blood Cells" being released. The White Stripes really hit it big with "Elephant" in 2003.
strokes and White Stripes are huge. Strokes especially. Is This It changed the game.
U2 never were as experimental and avantegarde as radiohead is and was. I love u2, but they stay pretty confined in a certain sound and area. Radiohead just completely changed their formula. A rock band making a rock album without guitars? The way Thoms lyrics and the music itself addresses themes of globalization and capitalism and modern societal alienation is pretty unparralleled.
The whole pay what you want thing for In Rainbows. The almost religious fervor they inspire among fans. the willingness to do absolutely anything they want at all times with every single project, the refusal to cater to or bow down to critics or fans.
Radiohead are the perfect example of what every band should be.
I think the answer is, other than Nirvana, clearly Radiohead.
You could say Radiohead pulled a Neil Young. Neil completely changed his sound in the early eighties.
Neil changes his sound for every album and in every era. Always has. That said, for Gen Y or the Mellenials, I dont think Neil has been the most important musician. He for sure influenced the most important band of our generation, Nirvana.
You're letting your love for PJ blind you. No way are they as important any other band that you mention. 25 years in NY and the Beatles were viewed among the greatest artists ever. U2 is huge throughout the world and have had pretty huge social impact. Metallica is probably the most influential metal band this side of Black Sabbath and pretty well unquestionably the most recognizable name.
The fact that Nirvana was only around for a short time almost strengthens their argument. The effect they had on music and pop culture in only 3 years is almost unprecedented.[/quote]
As for your U2 argument, popularity and importance are entirely different things. Metallica just isn't that good (obviously an opinion) and haven't evolved (understandably not what's at question here entirely). I agree and disagree on the Nirvana thing. As I stated in my previous post I understand them being in the mix, just not my choice. It's not a blind love of Pearl Jam making that decision. It's taking into account them solely fighting Ticketmaster, releasing official bootlegs of shows to their fans, not playing the same show over and over, rolling over for the "man" (doing what they want to do, when they want to do it). Those things, among others, make them more important in the grand scheme of things, I think. Disagreements are going to happen when it comes to topics like these. As fans of PJ I hope we can all just discuss instead of take things personally. I know history on this board doesn't show that'll happen, but hey, we can hope right?
"Not only do you have sunshine but you have better thunder...fuckers." -Ed, Phx 10/21/00
PJ * 10/21/00 - Phx * 6/7/03 - Phx * 6/29/06 - Milwaukee * 6/30/06 - Milwaukee * 11/19/13 - Phx *
EV * 11/4/12 - Phx, AZ *
As for your U2 argument, popularity and importance are entirely different things. Metallica just isn't that good (obviously an opinion) and haven't evolved (understandably not what's at question here entirely). I agree and disagree on the Nirvana thing. As I stated in my previous post I understand them being in the mix, just not my choice. It's not a blind love of Pearl Jam making that decision. It's taking into account them solely fighting Ticketmaster, releasing official bootlegs of shows to their fans, not playing the same show over and over, rolling over for the "man" (doing what they want to do, when they want to do it). Those things, among others, make them more important in the grand scheme of things, I think. Disagreements are going to happen when it comes to topics like these. As fans of PJ I hope we can all just discuss instead of take things personally. I know history on this board doesn't show that'll happen, but hey, we can hope right?
True about popularity, but just the things they've done for charity and awareness is enough to get them in the conversation.
In Metallica's case, you don't have to evolve to be influential.
None of those things that PJ did have really been that impactful. They didn't fight TM, they testified, for the losing side mind you.
Releasing every show is awesome and probably nudged some bands in that direction, but I don't think it's some big revelation. They're not the first or only band to play a different setlists every night. There are tons of things you can say about PJ, but I don't think they really belong in this conversation.
OUR generation? Who you talkin' about, young pencil necks.
Just kidding, of course.
But seriously, how do you define "the most important"? The most influential? The one that added most to the economy? The one that got disbanded or fell apart most quickly due to having radical political views? The one that influenced dress, jewelry and make up the most?
I'm thinking maybe "most important" is strictly a matter of personal choice.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
You're letting your love for PJ blind you. No way are they as important any other band that you mention. 25 years in NY and the Beatles were viewed among the greatest artists ever. U2 is huge throughout the world and have had pretty huge social impact. Metallica is probably the most influential metal band this side of Black Sabbath and pretty well unquestionably the most recognizable name.
The fact that Nirvana was only around for a short time almost strengthens their argument. The effect they had on music and pop culture in only 3 years is almost unprecedented.[/quote]
As for your U2 argument, popularity and importance are entirely different things. Metallica just isn't that good (obviously an opinion) and haven't evolved (understandably not what's at question here entirely). I agree and disagree on the Nirvana thing. As I stated in my previous post I understand them being in the mix, just not my choice. It's not a blind love of Pearl Jam making that decision. It's taking into account them solely fighting Ticketmaster, releasing official bootlegs of shows to their fans, not playing the same show over and over, rolling over for the "man" (doing what they want to do, when they want to do it). Those things, among others, make them more important in the grand scheme of things, I think. Disagreements are going to happen when it comes to topics like these. As fans of PJ I hope we can all just discuss instead of take things personally. I know history on this board doesn't show that'll happen, but hey, we can hope right?[/quote]
I wouldnt be here if I didnt respect PJ. But as was said, Idontthink they belong in the conversation. We all have our favorite bands. And thats fine. But Im talking huge bands. Bands like Nirvana and Radiohead, whose influence and importance was obscenely large. By their own admission PJ by 2009 were tired of being an unknown band and having fans come up to them wondering when they were releasing a new album, only to find the band had just released music. I dont think PJ were the most important band in the grunge movement, so how could they be the most important of our entire generation? That doesnt make sense. People confuse importance and influence with personal taste. Led Zep and The Beatles and Pink Floyd are 3 examples of bands whose influence and importance is global, huge, and undeniable. Even if you dont like them youd be crazy to say these bands arent important in history. Comparing Nirvana or even Radiohead's importance to PJ's in the large scheme of things, Pj pales in comparison. And I love PJ.
This board has long had a hatred of Nirvana. And I think a large part of it revolves around the idea, and theres some truth to it, 19 years later. The band that will be remembered in 50 years, is Nirvana. Thats just fact.
1998 ~ Barrie
2003 ~ Toronto
2005 ~ London, Toronto
2006 ~ Toronto
2008 ~ Hartford, Mansfied I,
2009 ~ Toronto, Chicago I, Chicago II
2010 ~ Cleveland, Buffalo
2011 ~ Toronto I, Toronto II, Ottawa, Hamilton
2013 - London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
Am I the only one who has listened to all of Radiohead's albums and just don't get the hype? There are some good songs, don't get me wrong, but for me, it's mostly boring and unlistenable.
The answer to the OP's orginal question is Pearl Jam. History will be kind to them I think. Similar to the way history has been kind to the Beatles & Uncle Neil. They may not be in the mainstream (by design) or have hit singles (would any of us here really want them to have #1 singles anymore? Tickets would be even harder to come by than they already are).
I can understand why Nirvana is thrown into the conversation but they just weren't around long enough to qualify for the topic, in my opinion.
U2 is just not "important" enough I think. They just write pop songs in the last 10-15 years with no clear message. Now I'll clarify that by saying I can't even listen to anything past Achtung Baby so if I'm wrong and proven to be I'll own up to that.
Metallica was mentioned above and all I can say to that is: No.
I think the difference is The Beatles and Neil and Radiohead and Nirvana completely changed everything. PJ is a great band but did they really alter the musical landscape?
Metallica I would say was more influential for a previous generation. Gen Xers. Their first four albums are classics. Thats undeniable, but this is all pre 1990.
Jimi changed the game and was only around for the same amount of time Nirvana and Kurt were. Outside music, someone like James Dean was influential for the same amount of time as well. All were and are legends. Time really has no bearing on it.
How did Radiohead "change everything"? What did they change at all? I can see why they're in the discussion, but I don't see all this hype like they turned the musical landscape upside down.
As for Pearl Jam. I don't see them on the list personally. They're my favorite band in the discussion, but favorite does not equal best, or most important. They certainly didn't break any new ground either. They make great music, but it follows in the footsteps of their influences. So much so that some of their songs have been called straight up forgeries, where we tend to see them as homages, as was probably the intention. They aren't copy-cats, but they didn't re-invent the wheel. Not that you necessarily have to re-invent the wheel, but it can add style points. So they don't make the list based on ingenuity. As far as their popularity/commercial importance, that really only lasted from Ten-Vitalogy, most people out there tuned out after that and stopped caring. I've heard the response "They're still together?" to my love of Pearl Jam from more than a few people. Also, their post-Yield discography has been pretty shaky. Not only did none of those albums light the world on fire, a couple of them failed to light their own fan base on fire. We still seem pretty split around here on Backspacer and Riot Act.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
How did Radiohead "change everything"? What did they change at all? I can see why they're in the discussion, but I don't see all this hype like they turned the musical landscape upside down.
As for Pearl Jam. I don't see them on the list personally. They're my favorite band in the discussion, but favorite does not equal best, or most important. They certainly didn't break any new ground either. They make great music, but it follows in the footsteps of their influences. So much so that some of their songs have been called straight up forgeries, where we tend to see them as homages, as was probably the intention. They aren't copy-cats, but they didn't re-invent the wheel. Not that you necessarily have to re-invent the wheel, but it can add style points. So they don't make the list based on ingenuity. As far as their popularity/commercial importance, that really only lasted from Ten-Vitalogy, most people out there tuned out after that and stopped caring. I've heard the response "They're still together?" to my love of Pearl Jam from more than a few people. Also, their post-Yield discography has been pretty shaky. Not only did none of those albums light the world on fire, a couple of them failed to light their own fan base on fire. We still seem pretty split around here on Backspacer and Riot Act.
Look at what Kid A did. Or In Rainbows. Radiohead is that band every other band wants to be. Critically loved, and commercially successful and make capital A art.
Look at the music thats been popular the last 5 or so years. Electronic music. Hugely successful ones like Burial and Four Tet and James Blake and the Xx and Flylo. You dont think they all were heavily into RH?
Look at what Kid A did. Or In Rainbows. Radiohead is that band every other band wants to be. Critically loved, and commercially successful and make capital A art.
Look at the music thats been popular the last 5 or so years. Electronic music. Hugely successful ones like Burial and Four Tet and James Blake and the Xx and Flylo. You dont think they all were heavily into RH?
What did those albums do? I'm not sure if you mean commercially or artistically or what. Kid A was certainly experimental, and I really liked it (I used to play it every night when I went to bed as I found most of it pretty relaxing), but I didn't see it as some pivotal moment in music or anything. I liked In Rainbows, but I'm not sure what makes it worth mentioning next to Kid A. I didn't even realize it was considered one of their better albums, only a few tracks stood out to me. Now if you're referring to the way it was released, that was certainly something.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
Look at what Kid A did. Or In Rainbows. Radiohead is that band every other band wants to be. Critically loved, and commercially successful and make capital A art.
Look at the music thats been popular the last 5 or so years. Electronic music. Hugely successful ones like Burial and Four Tet and James Blake and the Xx and Flylo. You dont think they all were heavily into RH?
What did those albums do? I'm not sure if you mean commercially or artistically or what. Kid A was certainly experimental, and I really liked it (I used to play it every night when I went to bed as I found most of it pretty relaxing), but I didn't see it as some pivotal moment in music or anything. I liked In Rainbows, but I'm not sure what makes it worth mentioning next to Kid A. I didn't even realize it was considered one of their better albums, only a few tracks stood out to me. Now if you're referring to the way it was released, that was certainly something.
Kid A placed either 1 or 2 on 95 percent of best albums of the 2000's list in 2009. As I said, it was a turning point for the band and artistically as well. A rock album by a rock band, but without guitars. As I said, the electronic sound thats become popular the last half decade definitely has roots in RH. And I think most people, most music fans would agree. KId A IS seen as a turning point in modern music. Theres a reason its such a beloved album. Theres a reason RH are as beloved as they are. And its because they create masterpieces like its normal.
In Rainbows is indeed considered one of their better albums. its my favorite of theirs actually. Its their most accessible, and shows they can do everything. They can be weird and experimental. But they can also create a quiet, straight forward almost pop album, or pop for radiohead that is. Yes, the way it was released was and is revolutionary, but the music itself is beautiful. You cant get more gorgeous than a Nude or House of Cards.
Look at what Kid A did. Or In Rainbows. Radiohead is that band every other band wants to be. Critically loved, and commercially successful and make capital A art.
Look at the music thats been popular the last 5 or so years. Electronic music. Hugely successful ones like Burial and Four Tet and James Blake and the Xx and Flylo. You dont think they all were heavily into RH?
What did those albums do? I'm not sure if you mean commercially or artistically or what. Kid A was certainly experimental, and I really liked it (I used to play it every night when I went to bed as I found most of it pretty relaxing), but I didn't see it as some pivotal moment in music or anything. I liked In Rainbows, but I'm not sure what makes it worth mentioning next to Kid A. I didn't even realize it was considered one of their better albums, only a few tracks stood out to me. Now if you're referring to the way it was released, that was certainly something.
Kid A placed either 1 or 2 on 95 percent of best albums of the 2000's list in 2009. As I said, it was a turning point for the band and artistically as well. A rock album by a rock band, but without guitars. As I said, the electronic sound thats become popular the last half decade definitely has roots in RH. And I think most people, most music fans would agree. KId A IS seen as a turning point in modern music. Theres a reason its such a beloved album. Theres a reason RH are as beloved as they are. And its because they create masterpieces like its normal.
In Rainbows is indeed considered one of their better albums. its my favorite of theirs actually. Its their most accessible, and shows they can do everything. They can be weird and experimental. But they can also create a quiet, straight forward almost pop album, or pop for radiohead that is. Yes, the way it was released was and is revolutionary, but the music itself is beautiful. You cant get more gorgeous than a Nude or House of Cards.
Kid A expanded what music could be.
The most important band is Nirvana, hands down.
As for Radiohead, the band OK Go is more important than them. Radiohead did a one off "you can download this album for free" publicity stunt but OK Go completely changed the way bands market themselves via social media and YouTube. Which one was the game changer? Ok Go isn't exactly the most talented band on the planet but they changed the way a lot of bands do things. If you're going to go with most important band of the internet age, they kind of win based on how they taught other bands to promote themselves.
Pitt 98, Pitt 00, Cleveland 03, Pitt 03, State College 03, Toledo 04, Toronto 05, Pitt 05, Cleveland 06, Pitt 06 & Chicago 07, Chicago 1&2 09, Philly 2,3,4 09, Cleveland 10, Columbus 10, Alpine Valley 1& 2 11
Comments
for my generation, nirvana. hands down.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I agree. Not necessarily my 'personal favourite' as a choice... but these guys had a profound social and political impact and still do to some degree. I might be confused by the question... but some of these other bands- despite being big- pale in comparison if one was to be objective.
But the thread title isn't 'influential band'... it's 'most important' band. To me that implies the band with the loudest voice. They aren't the Beatles... but for the last two decades... they're as close as we got (in my humble opinion).
For our generation I think its pretty clear the biggest and most important band has been Nirvana. I think its sort of silly to argue that its any other band. As I said, other than them, Radiohead has been highly important.
Nirvana's impact and importance was so huge I think it had an impact on the Y's as well. Theres an emotional connection to them and the lyrics than no band really has equaled, even in the nearly 20 years since Kurt died
Nirvana just because they completely changed the landscape. Their impact on music and pop culture is still being felt today. Try naming another band in the last 20 years that has had the same kind of impact. You can't.
And U2 because they're freakin' U2. End of debate. Yea, their recorded output in the last 10 years has been shoddy, although I thought No Line on the Horizon was an excellent return to form. The number of bands who have been influenced by them is a very long list, and there are even a few who have ripped off their sound entirely (Coldplay, Golden State). Most bands are lucky to make even one landmark album that resonates across multiple generations. U2 has made at least three (War, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby). You could even throw All That You Can't Leave Behind in there as well. It may not be their best work, but there's no denying how massive that album was when it came out, spawning 4 hit singles and a hugely successful tour. They also have an impressive ability to re-define large scale touring with insanely ambitious productions that put most other stadium-sized bands to shame. (Zoo TV is still the most mind-blowing stadium tour I`ve ever witnessed). Think U2 are a dinosaur act that only old people listen to? Think again. My buddy's 13 year-old daughter recently discovered their music on Youtube and went out and bought all their records. Yup, there`s still hope for today`s youth.
-Tom Waits
1. I see people saying "doing the 'Kid A'" thing, regarding how Radiohead completely changed their sound. In my opinion, I see Radiohead pulling an "Achtung Baby," with the way U2 completely changing their sound and that album being one of the biggest in music history, plus the huge tour to follow. You didn't really hear any indication U2 were going that way on "Rattle and Hum," besides "God Part II." With Radiohead, you can kind of hear early indications on "OK Computer" of the direction they eventually headed toward with "Kid A," like on "Fitter Happier."
2. For me in my early 20s, the bands I closely associate with my generation that I see as important are The Strokes and The White Stripes. Both bands hit the mainstream in 2001, with The Strokes' great debut album and "White Blood Cells" being released. The White Stripes really hit it big with "Elephant" in 2003.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
strokes and White Stripes are huge. Strokes especially. Is This It changed the game.
U2 never were as experimental and avantegarde as radiohead is and was. I love u2, but they stay pretty confined in a certain sound and area. Radiohead just completely changed their formula. A rock band making a rock album without guitars? The way Thoms lyrics and the music itself addresses themes of globalization and capitalism and modern societal alienation is pretty unparralleled.
The whole pay what you want thing for In Rainbows. The almost religious fervor they inspire among fans. the willingness to do absolutely anything they want at all times with every single project, the refusal to cater to or bow down to critics or fans.
Radiohead are the perfect example of what every band should be.
I think the answer is, other than Nirvana, clearly Radiohead.
You could say Radiohead pulled a Neil Young. Neil completely changed his sound in the early eighties.
The answer to the OP's orginal question is Pearl Jam. History will be kind to them I think. Similar to the way history has been kind to the Beatles & Uncle Neil. They may not be in the mainstream (by design) or have hit singles (would any of us here really want them to have #1 singles anymore? Tickets would be even harder to come by than they already are).
I can understand why Nirvana is thrown into the conversation but they just weren't around long enough to qualify for the topic, in my opinion.
U2 is just not "important" enough I think. They just write pop songs in the last 10-15 years with no clear message. Now I'll clarify that by saying I can't even listen to anything past Achtung Baby so if I'm wrong and proven to be I'll own up to that.
Metallica was mentioned above and all I can say to that is: No.
PJ * 10/21/00 - Phx * 6/7/03 - Phx * 6/29/06 - Milwaukee * 6/30/06 - Milwaukee * 11/19/13 - Phx *
EV * 11/4/12 - Phx, AZ *
Some good points about Radiohead here, and they certainly deserve to be in the conversation. However, just because a band is avant garde and experimental doesn't necessarily put them above anyone else in terms of cultural impact or importance. I love Radiohead, but it kinda bothers me that they've become so critic proof. Those guys could put out an album of them farting into a microphone, and hipsters and critics everywhere would call it "cutting edge", "brilliant", and "avant garde". When in reality, some of their stuff is actually quite boring in my opinion. King of Limbs has a couple of really great songs, but the rest of that album is an absolute snooze-fest. Is U2 a better band than Radiohead? That's debatable. But in terms of worldwide cultural impact over a long period, I'd argue that U2 are in a league of their own.
-Tom Waits
When it comes to music and bands, influence, both musical and cultural,is a huge part of what makes them important.
You're letting your love for PJ blind you. No way are they as important any other band that you mention. 25 years in NY and the Beatles were viewed among the greatest artists ever. U2 is huge throughout the world and have had pretty huge social impact. Metallica is probably the most influential metal band this side of Black Sabbath and pretty well unquestionably the most recognizable name.
The fact that Nirvana was only around for a short time almost strengthens their argument. The effect they had on music and pop culture in only 3 years is almost unprecedented.
Neil changes his sound for every album and in every era. Always has. That said, for Gen Y or the Mellenials, I dont think Neil has been the most important musician. He for sure influenced the most important band of our generation, Nirvana.
You're letting your love for PJ blind you. No way are they as important any other band that you mention. 25 years in NY and the Beatles were viewed among the greatest artists ever. U2 is huge throughout the world and have had pretty huge social impact. Metallica is probably the most influential metal band this side of Black Sabbath and pretty well unquestionably the most recognizable name.
The fact that Nirvana was only around for a short time almost strengthens their argument. The effect they had on music and pop culture in only 3 years is almost unprecedented.[/quote]
As for your U2 argument, popularity and importance are entirely different things. Metallica just isn't that good (obviously an opinion) and haven't evolved (understandably not what's at question here entirely). I agree and disagree on the Nirvana thing. As I stated in my previous post I understand them being in the mix, just not my choice. It's not a blind love of Pearl Jam making that decision. It's taking into account them solely fighting Ticketmaster, releasing official bootlegs of shows to their fans, not playing the same show over and over, rolling over for the "man" (doing what they want to do, when they want to do it). Those things, among others, make them more important in the grand scheme of things, I think. Disagreements are going to happen when it comes to topics like these. As fans of PJ I hope we can all just discuss instead of take things personally. I know history on this board doesn't show that'll happen, but hey, we can hope right?
PJ * 10/21/00 - Phx * 6/7/03 - Phx * 6/29/06 - Milwaukee * 6/30/06 - Milwaukee * 11/19/13 - Phx *
EV * 11/4/12 - Phx, AZ *
True about popularity, but just the things they've done for charity and awareness is enough to get them in the conversation.
In Metallica's case, you don't have to evolve to be influential.
None of those things that PJ did have really been that impactful. They didn't fight TM, they testified, for the losing side mind you.
Releasing every show is awesome and probably nudged some bands in that direction, but I don't think it's some big revelation. They're not the first or only band to play a different setlists every night. There are tons of things you can say about PJ, but I don't think they really belong in this conversation.
Just kidding, of course.
But seriously, how do you define "the most important"? The most influential? The one that added most to the economy? The one that got disbanded or fell apart most quickly due to having radical political views? The one that influenced dress, jewelry and make up the most?
I'm thinking maybe "most important" is strictly a matter of personal choice.
You're letting your love for PJ blind you. No way are they as important any other band that you mention. 25 years in NY and the Beatles were viewed among the greatest artists ever. U2 is huge throughout the world and have had pretty huge social impact. Metallica is probably the most influential metal band this side of Black Sabbath and pretty well unquestionably the most recognizable name.
The fact that Nirvana was only around for a short time almost strengthens their argument. The effect they had on music and pop culture in only 3 years is almost unprecedented.[/quote]
As for your U2 argument, popularity and importance are entirely different things. Metallica just isn't that good (obviously an opinion) and haven't evolved (understandably not what's at question here entirely). I agree and disagree on the Nirvana thing. As I stated in my previous post I understand them being in the mix, just not my choice. It's not a blind love of Pearl Jam making that decision. It's taking into account them solely fighting Ticketmaster, releasing official bootlegs of shows to their fans, not playing the same show over and over, rolling over for the "man" (doing what they want to do, when they want to do it). Those things, among others, make them more important in the grand scheme of things, I think. Disagreements are going to happen when it comes to topics like these. As fans of PJ I hope we can all just discuss instead of take things personally. I know history on this board doesn't show that'll happen, but hey, we can hope right?[/quote]
I wouldnt be here if I didnt respect PJ. But as was said, Idontthink they belong in the conversation. We all have our favorite bands. And thats fine. But Im talking huge bands. Bands like Nirvana and Radiohead, whose influence and importance was obscenely large. By their own admission PJ by 2009 were tired of being an unknown band and having fans come up to them wondering when they were releasing a new album, only to find the band had just released music. I dont think PJ were the most important band in the grunge movement, so how could they be the most important of our entire generation? That doesnt make sense. People confuse importance and influence with personal taste. Led Zep and The Beatles and Pink Floyd are 3 examples of bands whose influence and importance is global, huge, and undeniable. Even if you dont like them youd be crazy to say these bands arent important in history. Comparing Nirvana or even Radiohead's importance to PJ's in the large scheme of things, Pj pales in comparison. And I love PJ.
This board has long had a hatred of Nirvana. And I think a large part of it revolves around the idea, and theres some truth to it, 19 years later. The band that will be remembered in 50 years, is Nirvana. Thats just fact.
for me, this band
2003 ~ Toronto
2005 ~ London, Toronto
2006 ~ Toronto
2008 ~ Hartford, Mansfied I,
2009 ~ Toronto, Chicago I, Chicago II
2010 ~ Cleveland, Buffalo
2011 ~ Toronto I, Toronto II, Ottawa, Hamilton
2013 - London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
I think the difference is The Beatles and Neil and Radiohead and Nirvana completely changed everything. PJ is a great band but did they really alter the musical landscape?
Metallica I would say was more influential for a previous generation. Gen Xers. Their first four albums are classics. Thats undeniable, but this is all pre 1990.
Jimi changed the game and was only around for the same amount of time Nirvana and Kurt were. Outside music, someone like James Dean was influential for the same amount of time as well. All were and are legends. Time really has no bearing on it.
As for Pearl Jam. I don't see them on the list personally. They're my favorite band in the discussion, but favorite does not equal best, or most important. They certainly didn't break any new ground either. They make great music, but it follows in the footsteps of their influences. So much so that some of their songs have been called straight up forgeries, where we tend to see them as homages, as was probably the intention. They aren't copy-cats, but they didn't re-invent the wheel. Not that you necessarily have to re-invent the wheel, but it can add style points. So they don't make the list based on ingenuity. As far as their popularity/commercial importance, that really only lasted from Ten-Vitalogy, most people out there tuned out after that and stopped caring. I've heard the response "They're still together?" to my love of Pearl Jam from more than a few people. Also, their post-Yield discography has been pretty shaky. Not only did none of those albums light the world on fire, a couple of them failed to light their own fan base on fire. We still seem pretty split around here on Backspacer and Riot Act.
Look at what Kid A did. Or In Rainbows. Radiohead is that band every other band wants to be. Critically loved, and commercially successful and make capital A art.
Look at the music thats been popular the last 5 or so years. Electronic music. Hugely successful ones like Burial and Four Tet and James Blake and the Xx and Flylo. You dont think they all were heavily into RH?
What did those albums do? I'm not sure if you mean commercially or artistically or what. Kid A was certainly experimental, and I really liked it (I used to play it every night when I went to bed as I found most of it pretty relaxing), but I didn't see it as some pivotal moment in music or anything. I liked In Rainbows, but I'm not sure what makes it worth mentioning next to Kid A. I didn't even realize it was considered one of their better albums, only a few tracks stood out to me. Now if you're referring to the way it was released, that was certainly something.
Kid A placed either 1 or 2 on 95 percent of best albums of the 2000's list in 2009. As I said, it was a turning point for the band and artistically as well. A rock album by a rock band, but without guitars. As I said, the electronic sound thats become popular the last half decade definitely has roots in RH. And I think most people, most music fans would agree. KId A IS seen as a turning point in modern music. Theres a reason its such a beloved album. Theres a reason RH are as beloved as they are. And its because they create masterpieces like its normal.
In Rainbows is indeed considered one of their better albums. its my favorite of theirs actually. Its their most accessible, and shows they can do everything. They can be weird and experimental. But they can also create a quiet, straight forward almost pop album, or pop for radiohead that is. Yes, the way it was released was and is revolutionary, but the music itself is beautiful. You cant get more gorgeous than a Nude or House of Cards.
Kid A expanded what music could be.
The most important band is Nirvana, hands down.
As for Radiohead, the band OK Go is more important than them. Radiohead did a one off "you can download this album for free" publicity stunt but OK Go completely changed the way bands market themselves via social media and YouTube. Which one was the game changer? Ok Go isn't exactly the most talented band on the planet but they changed the way a lot of bands do things. If you're going to go with most important band of the internet age, they kind of win based on how they taught other bands to promote themselves.