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.
There is guitar on Kid A, Optimistic comes to mind. If that's not a guitar, they might as well have used one, sounds like guitar.
Rock music had most of its barriers broken down long before Radiohead, at least in terms of somebody saying "you can't do that" if somebody were to make an album or song with little or no guitar. Eleanor Rigby is the first song that comes to mind that really blurred the lines and broke down barriers by not having a single traditional rock instrument, just vocals and strings. By the time The Beatles and Beach Boys were done, Prog Rock (early Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, etc) had done it's thing, as well as Bowie and whoever else, it was pretty clear that rock music could be just about anything.
And Radiohead didn't invent mixing rock and electronic music. That's what the entire 80's were about, although much more poppy than what we're talking about with Radiohead. But Depeche Mode certainly paved the way for the likes of Radiohead, and probably Joy Division as well in the late '70's and early 80's.
Whether or not anything is more beautiful than Nude or House Of Cards is probably up for debate. I'd say there absolutely is. And masterpieces is a subjective term. I don't see how Kid A expanded what music could be, because it already seemed pretty clear it could be whatever the artist wanted it to be. Radiohead followed the proud tradition, and maybe they did it at a time when when guitar bands were back in the spotlight thanks to grunge and then alternative (but electronic music was very popular too, Daft Punk having hit the scene) but it wasn't like some unheard of leap.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
Honestly, I think both Pearl Jam and Radiohead deserve major props for showing that there is a better way to distribute music, and communicate with fans. I'm not talking musically, but I think as far as the music industry is concerned, these are probably the two most important rock bands of the last 20 years.
Both bands have pioneered the sort of direct to fan marketing that has kept them both relevant and in the public eye, while other bands like STP who refused to embrace the future and stubbornly stuck to traditional methods of marketing and distribution have taken a serious drubbing in terms of sales and concert attendance, both these bands have sidestepped some of the worst toll that the digital age has taken upon their contemporaries.
Amazing considering PJ were the band who were once vocally highly conservative about the changing face of the industry, and point blank refused to embrace new formats. Not only have they made downloads work for them spectacularly well (pioneering the availability of all their shows in mp3 format for instance), but by also continuing to push vinyl throughout their career when other bands abandoned the format, they are now riding both the digital wave AND the vinyl resurgence wave simultaneously.
Honestly, I think both Pearl Jam and Radiohead deserve major props for showing that there is a better way to distribute music, and communicate with fans. I'm not talking musically, but I think as far as the music industry is concerned, these are probably the two most important rock bands of the last 20 years.
Both bands have pioneered the sort of direct to fan marketing that has kept them both relevant and in the public eye, while other bands like STP who refused to embrace the future and stubbornly stuck to traditional methods of marketing and distribution have taken a serious drubbing in terms of sales and concert attendance, both these bands have sidestepped some of the worst toll that the digital age has taken upon their contemporaries.
Amazing considering PJ were the band who were once vocally highly conservative about the changing face of the industry, and point blank refused to embrace new formats. Not only have they made downloads work for them spectacularly well (pioneering the availability of all their shows in mp3 format for instance), but by also continuing to push vinyl throughout their career when other bands abandoned the format, they are now riding both the digital wave AND the vinyl resurgence wave simultaneously.
Very impressive.
I don't think PJ did that much regarding music distribution and Radiohead's pay what you want thing was certainly new but it's far from a game changer. Consoles of the Lonely by the Raconteurs is another album that I thought could change some things but I don't see any bands doing what Radiohead did or announcing an album and releasing it the next week like the Racs. The quick release thing is something that seems so obvious in this day and age. PJ doing the exact opposite is a little baffling.
If you wanna talk about albums that broke down some barriers with Internet distribution and I think had a big hand in inspiring a lot of bands making their shows available as downloads it's the Page/Crowes Live at the Greek album.
If the vinyl resurgence really comes down to 1)nostalgia and B)people getting sick of horrible sounding mp3s and looking for a different alternative along with a hip factor once it got rolling a bit. It's still a tiny portion of music consumption. To give credit to any one band or even a few bands would be misguided IMO.
I honestly think PJ missed a huge oppurtunity to pioneer the way bigger bands converse with their fans. They've one of the biggest online communities, especially relative to thei popularity at times and they've basically just ran their band like any other band. I don't fault them or hold it against them, but if they wanted to really break down some barriers that was a huge missed chance in the early days of the Internet?
I agree with the sentiment that Radiohead have certainly pushed boundaries with their music but I don't see the big effect it's had. I feel like other acts doing electronic music are getting inspired by different acts. Even if you look at the rock bands that do it, I think they get as much from NIN or other older acts as much as from Radiohead.
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.
exactly..u2 put out their voice,strongly,with no fear,and lead the scene and made huge steps in music scene and show the power of music,lyrics and the movemment can create by them
and coming from a small country like Ireland,make look this so underground and inspire people..
and thats not easy thing to do..
"...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.....”
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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
I dont think the In Rainbows marketing scheme was a publicity stunt, or at least it wasnt to any greater degree than what Ok Go did with that video on those exercise machines or how they market their own music.
Publicity stunt to me implies marketing with intent to gain financially. Radiohead are one band who of course make mad bank, but if you are going to go the money route they've certainly done it in the most risky way imaginable.
Thom and company, as well as Trent to me are the vanguard, You want to know the future of music promotion and how to sell your art, those guys I think will most likely be at the forefront and will pioneer it.
As far as it being a "one off" thing, I think thats completely inaccurate. Will they ever allow fans to choose the price of a future RH album again? Maybe not. But the way they released These are my twisted words, and Harry Partch and even the release strategy for King of Limbs was non conventional and unorthodox. Thom has hinted for years he;s done releasing full length LP's, and the band will only focus on EP's
Even the way Radiohead run their business is revolutionary. They probably have among the top live stage/light shows of any band in the world, and its environmentally conscious, down to the LED lights used and all that stuff.. At one time the band actually sent their gear via boats/train to offset their carbon footprint. There was that time they were asked to play conan, they felt flying to NY to play a single song was environmentally outrageous, so they sent a video of them playing the song.
Everything Radiohead does is revolutionary. They are just that good.
Everything Radiohead does is revolutionary. They are just that good.
Some of us don't feel quite this strongly, Music. I'm glad you think so highly of them and I'm not knocking your musical tastes, but to be honest... I respect them more than I like them.
If the world was given a choice between completely erasing the work and history of U2 or Radiohead... I'm positive that Radiohead would be getting dumped.
I agree with the sentiment that Radiohead have certainly pushed boundaries with their music but I don't see the big effect it's had. I feel like other acts doing electronic music are getting inspired by different acts. Even if you look at the rock bands that do it, I think they get as much from NIN or other older acts as much as from Radiohead.
I think it's all to do with timing, and the progression they made as a band. The leaps they made from each album were amazing, and Kid A was so leftfield for them as a mainstream rock band. I think it was such a bold move that people just couldn't help but be impressed by it. Plus it really made them stand out against all the other dreary rock bands at the time - giving people disillusioned by that music an alternative avenue to head down.
Radiohead is digested by the niche fan that love them because their snobbiness tells them they are supposed to.
Whilst I think there is a grain of truth in what you say, particularly in terms of their 2000's output, The Bends and OK Computer are as solid as records come, and the praise heaped on them at the time was perfectly justified.
comparing Nirvana to Radiohead is like comparing apples to asparagus.
Nirvana is a fundamental component of the musical landscape.
Radiohead is digested by the niche fan that love them because their snobbiness tells them they are supposed to.
Did you just get around to reading this thread?
I agree with this. I have stated that U2 is the band of our generation and still believe this, but I'll never forget when Nevermind consistently blasted through the university's pub speakers and very clearly characterized my generation.
Radiohead is digested by the niche fan that love them because their snobbiness tells them they are supposed to.
Whilst I think there is a grain of truth in what you say, particularly in terms of their 2000's output, The Bends and OK Computer are as solid as records come, and the praise heaped on them at the time was perfectly justified.
completely agree. OKC is a brilliant album. I love everything previous to it, but nothing since except In Rainbows.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Regarding people's sentiment on U2, there is no doubt they were a huge part of the 90s generation. But where they came from, musically, is more the point. They were essentially a new wave band (Called the Hype for their first few shows). They represented a side to my country, that a lot people did not want to admit existed. During the 80s, they prodded the sores of the violence in the north of Ireland. Society depravation "I see seven towers, but I only see one way out". This lyric referred to a deprived area of North Dublin which had seven highrise flat complexes, and the loss of hope of a generation plagued by economic ruin, drug and alcohol addiction.
The Unforgettable Fire, for me, was their best album however. And imo its only as far as this point, they were speaking to the young generation. Joshua Tree and beyond, they moved passed this agenda, and focused on becoming worldwide supergroup, dealing with world issues, those which in the immediate sense, did not concern people coming out of school with no hope of a job. (And here we are again)
This is now where I think Pearl Jam are (or at least that what it seems like) with all these mainstream media apperances. I have read a few reviews of the recent shows, and some writers are telling Bruce S to watch his back... Pearl Jam are coming up fast. I feel they are now trying to open themselves to the wider public, whilst still retaining their massive loyal fanbase.
I just so dearly hope that the music isn't lost in this quest
RDS Dublin - Aug 26 1995 (Neil Young with Pearl Jam)
Millstreet Arena - Oct 24, 1996
The Point - Oct 26, 1996
The Point - Jun 01, 2000
The Point - Aug 23, 2006
Wembley Arena - Jun 18, 2007
Manchester Evening News Arena - Aug 17, 2009
The O2 - Jun 22, 2010
Odyssey Arena - Jun 23, 2010
Manchester Evening News Arena - Jun 20 2012
Amsterdam Ziggo Dome - Jun 26 2012
Amsterdam Ziggo Dome - Jun 16 2014
I've only read a few of the many pages here, but there is one key question that to me determines a key aspect of the answer to the main question: has anyone defined "our generation" for the purpose of this thread?
A lot of this depends on how old you are. My first instinct of an answer is The Clash, becaues for my generation (in my 40s) I think that's true (although there are several other artists who could be put up as equally influential/important, I just think they are The MOST important).
So how do we define "our generation" for this conversation, what time period? Because my answer to this thread depends on the answer to that.
I've only read a few of the many pages here, but there is one key question that to me determines a key aspect of the answer to the main question: has anyone defined "our generation" for the purpose of this thread?
A lot of this depends on how old you are. My first instinct of an answer is The Clash, becaues for my generation (in my 40s) I think that's true (although there are several other artists who could be put up as equally influential/important, I just think they are The MOST important).
So how do we define "our generation" for this conversation, what time period? Because my answer to this thread depends on the answer to that.
I would say Gen X.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Remind me again what time period "Gen X" covers? I'm old and was probably more like "Generation Q"...
Gen X'ers are Ed's age. Kurts. Chris Cornells age. They are the children of the hippies. So they were born in the 60's. It covers a time period of like 1964 to 1982 or so.
I've only read a few of the many pages here, but there is one key question that to me determines a key aspect of the answer to the main question: has anyone defined "our generation" for the purpose of this thread?
A lot of this depends on how old you are. My first instinct of an answer is The Clash, becaues for my generation (in my 40s) I think that's true (although there are several other artists who could be put up as equally influential/important, I just think they are The MOST important).
So how do we define "our generation" for this conversation, what time period? Because my answer to this thread depends on the answer to that.
I think alot of folks on here grew up and came of age in the early 90's. Grunge was their soundtrack. I get the sense most folks on here are late 20's to 40's. Which would make sense. You arent going to be 18 if you have a ten club number of like 10,000 or something.
Funny...I didn't read this thread until after I posted the anti Radiohead thread.
What is "our generation"?
I'm getting up there at 40, so I still think it's a tie between Nirvana and Pearl Jam.
If "our generation" is 2000 and beyond...still Pearl Jam.
19 Pearl Jam shows and still searching for Deep! 1998 (2) - East Lansing & Auburn Hills; 2000 (2) - Tampa & Noblesville; 2003 (2) - Lexington & Noblesville; 2006 (1) - Cincinnati; 2007 (1) - Chicago (Lollapalooza); 2008 (Ed in Milwaukee); 2009 (1) - Chicago; 2010 (1) - Noblesville; 2013 (3) - San Diego & Los Angeles I & II; 2016 (Temple of the Dog in Los Angeles); 2017 (Ed at Ohana in Dana Point); 2021 (3) - Dana Point I, II & III; 2022 (3) - San Diego & Los Angeles I & II; 2025 - Southern U.S. Tour Please!
Important is a word that makes this subject very objective.
I think the word actually makes it less objective, but I hear what you are saying and it does leave room for interpretation. I assumed the question was centered around which band had the greatest social impact.
One could be arguing that 'important' implied which band was responsible for inspiring more music or which band produced the largest catalogue of timeless music... among many other things.
there is no correct answer to this question. really no answer at all. the last so called 'important' band you could argue for is Nirvana. in the sense that they changed the mainstream landscape of popular music at that time. rock bands don't have that type of widespread impact or appeal anymore, and it's because of how music is consumed by the public. everything has changed. there will never be another grunge movement. there will never be another 'important' rock band in a broad scope. there will be great bands, maybe even bands better than nirvana depending on your perspective. but there will never be another band that did to pop music what nirvana did to it. rendering this discussion meaningless.
*and it wasn't really even anything that nirvana did. they were just the right band at the right time and were fortunate to benefit off of it. not saying they weren't great, but it wasn't like what the beatles did. cause let's be honest, nirvana didn't really re-invent the wheel, they just brought it to the masses.
the most important band in my world for the new millennium would be my morning jacket. they seem to be the band that is keeping classic rock alive, and doing it brilliantly, specifically with their live shows. that said, i would never try and convince anyone that my morning jacket is an 'important' band, let alone the most important band of our generation.
Comments
There is guitar on Kid A, Optimistic comes to mind. If that's not a guitar, they might as well have used one, sounds like guitar.
Rock music had most of its barriers broken down long before Radiohead, at least in terms of somebody saying "you can't do that" if somebody were to make an album or song with little or no guitar. Eleanor Rigby is the first song that comes to mind that really blurred the lines and broke down barriers by not having a single traditional rock instrument, just vocals and strings. By the time The Beatles and Beach Boys were done, Prog Rock (early Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, etc) had done it's thing, as well as Bowie and whoever else, it was pretty clear that rock music could be just about anything.
And Radiohead didn't invent mixing rock and electronic music. That's what the entire 80's were about, although much more poppy than what we're talking about with Radiohead. But Depeche Mode certainly paved the way for the likes of Radiohead, and probably Joy Division as well in the late '70's and early 80's.
Whether or not anything is more beautiful than Nude or House Of Cards is probably up for debate. I'd say there absolutely is. And masterpieces is a subjective term. I don't see how Kid A expanded what music could be, because it already seemed pretty clear it could be whatever the artist wanted it to be. Radiohead followed the proud tradition, and maybe they did it at a time when when guitar bands were back in the spotlight thanks to grunge and then alternative (but electronic music was very popular too, Daft Punk having hit the scene) but it wasn't like some unheard of leap.
Both bands have pioneered the sort of direct to fan marketing that has kept them both relevant and in the public eye, while other bands like STP who refused to embrace the future and stubbornly stuck to traditional methods of marketing and distribution have taken a serious drubbing in terms of sales and concert attendance, both these bands have sidestepped some of the worst toll that the digital age has taken upon their contemporaries.
Amazing considering PJ were the band who were once vocally highly conservative about the changing face of the industry, and point blank refused to embrace new formats. Not only have they made downloads work for them spectacularly well (pioneering the availability of all their shows in mp3 format for instance), but by also continuing to push vinyl throughout their career when other bands abandoned the format, they are now riding both the digital wave AND the vinyl resurgence wave simultaneously.
Very impressive.
I don't think PJ did that much regarding music distribution and Radiohead's pay what you want thing was certainly new but it's far from a game changer. Consoles of the Lonely by the Raconteurs is another album that I thought could change some things but I don't see any bands doing what Radiohead did or announcing an album and releasing it the next week like the Racs. The quick release thing is something that seems so obvious in this day and age. PJ doing the exact opposite is a little baffling.
If you wanna talk about albums that broke down some barriers with Internet distribution and I think had a big hand in inspiring a lot of bands making their shows available as downloads it's the Page/Crowes Live at the Greek album.
If the vinyl resurgence really comes down to 1)nostalgia and B)people getting sick of horrible sounding mp3s and looking for a different alternative along with a hip factor once it got rolling a bit. It's still a tiny portion of music consumption. To give credit to any one band or even a few bands would be misguided IMO.
I honestly think PJ missed a huge oppurtunity to pioneer the way bigger bands converse with their fans. They've one of the biggest online communities, especially relative to thei popularity at times and they've basically just ran their band like any other band. I don't fault them or hold it against them, but if they wanted to really break down some barriers that was a huge missed chance in the early days of the Internet?
and coming from a small country like Ireland,make look this so underground and inspire people..
and thats not easy thing to do..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
I dont think the In Rainbows marketing scheme was a publicity stunt, or at least it wasnt to any greater degree than what Ok Go did with that video on those exercise machines or how they market their own music.
Publicity stunt to me implies marketing with intent to gain financially. Radiohead are one band who of course make mad bank, but if you are going to go the money route they've certainly done it in the most risky way imaginable.
Thom and company, as well as Trent to me are the vanguard, You want to know the future of music promotion and how to sell your art, those guys I think will most likely be at the forefront and will pioneer it.
As far as it being a "one off" thing, I think thats completely inaccurate. Will they ever allow fans to choose the price of a future RH album again? Maybe not. But the way they released These are my twisted words, and Harry Partch and even the release strategy for King of Limbs was non conventional and unorthodox. Thom has hinted for years he;s done releasing full length LP's, and the band will only focus on EP's
Even the way Radiohead run their business is revolutionary. They probably have among the top live stage/light shows of any band in the world, and its environmentally conscious, down to the LED lights used and all that stuff.. At one time the band actually sent their gear via boats/train to offset their carbon footprint. There was that time they were asked to play conan, they felt flying to NY to play a single song was environmentally outrageous, so they sent a video of them playing the song.
Everything Radiohead does is revolutionary. They are just that good.
Some of us don't feel quite this strongly, Music. I'm glad you think so highly of them and I'm not knocking your musical tastes, but to be honest... I respect them more than I like them.
If the world was given a choice between completely erasing the work and history of U2 or Radiohead... I'm positive that Radiohead would be getting dumped.
I think it's all to do with timing, and the progression they made as a band. The leaps they made from each album were amazing, and Kid A was so leftfield for them as a mainstream rock band. I think it was such a bold move that people just couldn't help but be impressed by it. Plus it really made them stand out against all the other dreary rock bands at the time - giving people disillusioned by that music an alternative avenue to head down.
Nirvana is a fundamental component of the musical landscape.
Radiohead is digested by the niche fan that love them because their snobbiness tells them they are supposed to.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Whilst I think there is a grain of truth in what you say, particularly in terms of their 2000's output, The Bends and OK Computer are as solid as records come, and the praise heaped on them at the time was perfectly justified.
Did you just get around to reading this thread?
I agree with this. I have stated that U2 is the band of our generation and still believe this, but I'll never forget when Nevermind consistently blasted through the university's pub speakers and very clearly characterized my generation.
completely agree. OKC is a brilliant album. I love everything previous to it, but nothing since except In Rainbows.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The Unforgettable Fire, for me, was their best album however. And imo its only as far as this point, they were speaking to the young generation. Joshua Tree and beyond, they moved passed this agenda, and focused on becoming worldwide supergroup, dealing with world issues, those which in the immediate sense, did not concern people coming out of school with no hope of a job. (And here we are again)
This is now where I think Pearl Jam are (or at least that what it seems like) with all these mainstream media apperances. I have read a few reviews of the recent shows, and some writers are telling Bruce S to watch his back... Pearl Jam are coming up fast. I feel they are now trying to open themselves to the wider public, whilst still retaining their massive loyal fanbase.
I just so dearly hope that the music isn't lost in this quest
Millstreet Arena - Oct 24, 1996
The Point - Oct 26, 1996
The Point - Jun 01, 2000
The Point - Aug 23, 2006
Wembley Arena - Jun 18, 2007
Manchester Evening News Arena - Aug 17, 2009
The O2 - Jun 22, 2010
Odyssey Arena - Jun 23, 2010
Manchester Evening News Arena - Jun 20 2012
Amsterdam Ziggo Dome - Jun 26 2012
Amsterdam Ziggo Dome - Jun 16 2014
A lot of this depends on how old you are. My first instinct of an answer is The Clash, becaues for my generation (in my 40s) I think that's true (although there are several other artists who could be put up as equally influential/important, I just think they are The MOST important).
So how do we define "our generation" for this conversation, what time period? Because my answer to this thread depends on the answer to that.
I would say Gen X.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Faith No More have influenced bands like Deftones and Incubus along with many others.
Rage Against The Machine helped to bring rap into rock, which isn't often a good thing!
Guns N Roses got as big as a rock band can get and have influenced plenty since.
Nirvana are still a massive name in rock too. Cobain has been immortalised though, of course.
Jeff Buckley has influenced many musicians - Radiohead and Muse in particular.
Pearl Jam have, often singlehandedly, kept grunge alive.
Radiohead and U2 are other big shouts too.
http://www.last.fm/user/olivavu
Gen X'ers are Ed's age. Kurts. Chris Cornells age. They are the children of the hippies. So they were born in the 60's. It covers a time period of like 1964 to 1982 or so.
I think alot of folks on here grew up and came of age in the early 90's. Grunge was their soundtrack. I get the sense most folks on here are late 20's to 40's. Which would make sense. You arent going to be 18 if you have a ten club number of like 10,000 or something.
What is "our generation"?
I'm getting up there at 40, so I still think it's a tie between Nirvana and Pearl Jam.
If "our generation" is 2000 and beyond...still Pearl Jam.
1998 (2) - East Lansing & Auburn Hills; 2000 (2) - Tampa & Noblesville; 2003 (2) - Lexington & Noblesville; 2006 (1) - Cincinnati; 2007 (1) - Chicago (Lollapalooza); 2008 (Ed in Milwaukee); 2009 (1) - Chicago; 2010 (1) - Noblesville; 2013 (3) - San Diego & Los Angeles I & II; 2016 (Temple of the Dog in Los Angeles); 2017 (Ed at Ohana in Dana Point);
2021 (3) - Dana Point I, II & III; 2022 (3) - San Diego & Los Angeles I & II; 2025 - Southern U.S. Tour Please!
http://www.last.fm/user/olivavu
I think the word actually makes it less objective, but I hear what you are saying and it does leave room for interpretation. I assumed the question was centered around which band had the greatest social impact.
One could be arguing that 'important' implied which band was responsible for inspiring more music or which band produced the largest catalogue of timeless music... among many other things.
Pearl Jam are far and away the most important band to me, but I know they aren't the answer to the question.
I don't think there is an answer that is correct though.
http://www.last.fm/user/olivavu
wut? Now this is just crazy.
*and it wasn't really even anything that nirvana did. they were just the right band at the right time and were fortunate to benefit off of it. not saying they weren't great, but it wasn't like what the beatles did. cause let's be honest, nirvana didn't really re-invent the wheel, they just brought it to the masses.
the most important band in my world for the new millennium would be my morning jacket. they seem to be the band that is keeping classic rock alive, and doing it brilliantly, specifically with their live shows. that said, i would never try and convince anyone that my morning jacket is an 'important' band, let alone the most important band of our generation.