Who is our generation's Rolling Stones or Dead or u2?

2

Comments

  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    love him or hate him, Dave Matthews still gets a huge crowd
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    South of Seattle wrote:
    Your dad got the answer wrong and you agreed with him? Pearl Jam may not be everywhere like the Jonas Brothers, but they're still very, very popular.

    i along with everyone else on the board wishes this was true, and I think the band wanted it to be true in 2006 when they released the last cd, but alas nothing came of it. They had more exposure with the new album, gave more interviews, did more press, than I have ever seen them do, with the exception of during the heydey of grunge. They were on SNL, they were on, or ed was on the cover of Rolling Stone, they signed to a new label, and Mike and others seemed to suggest for the first time maybe ever in the bands history, they wanted the record to do really well commercially.

    I dont think PJ is popular. I dont think teens now, know who they are. I think to many people they are a band who existed during the early 90's. its sad but true.
  • CM1847
    CM1847 Posts: 577
    MrSmith wrote:
    love him or hate him, Dave Matthews still gets a huge crowd
    That's a good point, I forgot about him. He also has one of the most rabid fanbases out there, he's got to be considered with Pearl Jam and Radiohead.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    walkthamile wrote:
    Well, every album they release goes gold at least and they still pull 20,000 to shows all across America, South America, Europe, Australia...so i'd say they are still quite popular. They have sold a lot of records and are considered icons for their era of music.

    In terms of rock n roll, it has to be Pearl Jam...


    They are popular in their niche, they have a cult fan base basically. Just like when Chuck Palanhiuk releases a new book or something. he has a rabid fanbase.

    i really dont think you guys are right on this. yes pearl jam can still sell out venues across the world, and yes, their albums are never ever complete commercial flops, but anyone who suggests they are in anyway "popular" is insane to put it lightly.

    This band built their careers around pissing off commercial and scene fans. ed admits that no code was basically an attempt to lose fans. the ticketmaster thing lost them millions of dollars and millions of fans. and I dont think those fans have come back.
  • South of Seattle
    South of Seattle West Seattle Posts: 10,724
    radiohead33 wrote:
    They are popular in their niche, they have a cult fan base basically. Just like when Chuck Palanhiuk releases a new book or something. he has a rabid fanbase.

    i really dont think you guys are right on this. yes pearl jam can still sell out venues across the world, and yes, their albums are never ever complete commercial flops, but anyone who suggests they are in anyway "popular" is insane to put it lightly.

    This band built their careers around pissing off commercial and scene fans. ed admits that no code was basically an attempt to lose fans. the ticketmaster thing lost them millions of dollars and millions of fans. and I dont think those fans have come back.

    The Era's you're comparing is like apples vs. oranges.

    The Beatles hype and popularity of yesterday would be similar to what we had with N'sync / New Kids / Backstreet Boys

    The Grateful Dead were never commercially popular and you're using them as an example?
    NERDS!
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    which generation?
  • supersonicyears
    supersonicyears Posts: 2,619
    Pearl Jam or U2

    Pearl Jam is definately comparible to the Grateful Dead. They have a huge following. The fans will go to many shows when they are on tour the way the Dead fans did.

    Pearl Jam is better than the Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones were way overated.
    "In the age of darkness
    want to be enlightened"
  • Jack_C_Gregory
    Jack_C_Gregory Posts: 540
    If they were still together, I would say Phish. While they did not sell a lot of albums, their fanbase was pretty large. I think 90,000 flocked to Vermont to catch their last three shows.

    Dave Matthews isn't on Mtv anymore, but, his live shows still sell really well.

    I would also have to go with U2 because they still sell a shit load of albums and people go to their shows in large numbers. But, I guess that's expected when Jesus Christ is the front man. :)
  • partyofone
    partyofone Posts: 44
    Who cares...The Stones, U2, Beatles, they weren't thaaat great, so we shouldn't even compare them to PJ.
    Ya, I said it.

    But really, music today is so different. The internet, ipods, myspace, mtv, the millions of bands out there, illegal downloading, etc....I don't think any real, talented, original musicians will get that big anymore like they used to. The only people getting big these days are commercialized pop shits whose sole purpose isn't making good music, but to sell-$$$.
    It'll be interesting to see what this new idea of giving music out for free (radiohead, nin), only available online, etc, will do to the music industry in the next few years.
    "Would I rather be feared or loved? Um... Easy, both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." -Michael Scott
  • walkthamile
    walkthamile Posts: 349
    radiohead33 wrote:
    They are popular in their niche, they have a cult fan base basically.

    I think you are wrong here...I mean I live in Australia and they easily sold out 2 x 20,000 seat arenas in Sydney and a third show that was probably 3/4 full. That's roughly 55,000 tickets sold in Sydney alone. This happens pretty much every time they come here! I don't consider this a cult fanbase. Foo fighters would probably be hard up pulling the same!

    Not to mention a couple of sold out shows of comparable size in Melbourne and Brisbane and 1 big show in Perth probably 25,000.

    Like another poster said, you are comparing them to the Grateful Dead...

    radiohead33 wrote:
    i really dont think you guys are right on this. yes pearl jam can still sell out venues across the world, and yes, their albums are never ever complete commercial flops, but anyone who suggests they are in anyway "popular" is insane to put it lightly. .

    List some other bands capable of doing the same in Sydney or any other major metropolis in the world...then ask yourself the question, are these bands considered popular?
    radiohead33 wrote:
    This band built their careers around pissing off commercial and scene fans. ed admits that no code was basically an attempt to lose fans. the ticketmaster thing lost them millions of dollars and millions of fans. and I dont think those fans have come back.

    Well, at the height of their fame, using the Sydney model that I have referred to, they had three shows in Sydney (1995) and played to about 30,000 at a place called Eastern Creek Raceway in addition to 2 shows at the Sydney Entertainment Centre (15,000 capacity). So it seems they have managed to hold on to quite a few fans!
    +--+-Official Upcoming Australasian Tour:Member #9-+--+
  • mnicole22
    mnicole22 Posts: 417
    I BrisK I wrote:
    Rush?


    *shudder*
    AKA Cinnamon Girl :(

    05-10-06
    08-05-07
    06-14-08
    08-12-08 (EV)
  • CM1847
    CM1847 Posts: 577
    radiohead33 wrote:
    They are popular in their niche, they have a cult fan base basically. Just like when Chuck Palanhiuk releases a new book or something. he has a rabid fanbase.

    i really dont think you guys are right on this. yes pearl jam can still sell out venues across the world, and yes, their albums are never ever complete commercial flops, but anyone who suggests they are in anyway "popular" is insane to put it lightly.

    This band built their careers around pissing off commercial and scene fans. ed admits that no code was basically an attempt to lose fans. the ticketmaster thing lost them millions of dollars and millions of fans. and I dont think those fans have come back.

    It just depends on your definition of "popular." If you think popular means that every album they release is guarenteed to go platinum and every single they release will be a top 10 hit, then yes, they aren't popular anymore.

    But the fact is, most bands in the world would kill to be as "unpopular" as Pearl Jam is. They still draw at huge venues and sell very well. Sure, the general population isn't on the edge of their seats anticipating their next album, but how many bands fall into that category today? Jonas Brothers, Hannah Montana? The music industry has changed so much, comparing popularity today to popularity 40 years ago isn't a fair comparison. Using your definition I think the answer is that there are no more popular bands except the current flavor of the week.

    If you compare Pearl Jam to their peers, they stand near the top in terms of popularity and both commercial and financial success. Yes, they aren't producing hit singles anymore, but how many bands who were around in the early 90s(heck, even the late 90s) are doing as well as PJ nowadays?
  • NeilJam
    NeilJam Posts: 1,191
    CM1847 wrote:
    Agreed, it's not even close. If there has been an artist comparable to The Beatles in the past 30 years, it was Michael Jackson.


    I certainly hope you mean this in terms of popularity. As an artist MJ is in no way comparable to the Beatles.
  • NeilJam
    NeilJam Posts: 1,191
    WeaponX655321 wrote:
    If they were still together, I would say Phish. While they did not sell a lot of albums, their fanbase was pretty large. I think 90,000 flocked to Vermont to catch their last three shows.

    Dave Matthews isn't on Mtv anymore, but, his live shows still sell really well.

    I would also have to go with U2 because they still sell a shit load of albums and people go to their shows in large numbers. But, I guess that's expected when Jesus Christ is the front man. :)


    Phish will be back, possibly as soon as next year. They recently reunited to perform at their former tour manager's wedding.

    http://bonnaroo.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=bands&action=display&thread=15169
  • CM1847
    CM1847 Posts: 577
    NeilJam wrote:
    I certainly hope you mean this in terms of popularity. As an artist MJ is in no way comparable to the Beatles.
    Yes, popularity. Everything he did in the 80s was absolute gold. He certainly isn't on the Beatles level musically, but he was the closest thing since them in terms of how big of a star he was in his day. And he had some damn good pop songs.
  • Jearlpam0925
    Jearlpam0925 Deep South Philly Posts: 17,640
    Pearl Jam is definitely that band. Your dad's wrong because the image of bands are different today. Luckily back in his day the easily accessible popular music was the absolute best music out there. Nowadays popularity and Rolling Stone covers don't coincide with quality anymore.
  • petrocs
    petrocs Posts: 4,342
    New Rolling Stones- Pearl Jam
    New Beatles- Oasis
    New U2- U2
    Shows:
    9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
    10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
  • Get_Right
    Get_Right Posts: 14,238
    radiohead33 wrote:
    .

    I said of course PJ, but he was right because he said, they arent really popular now, and havent been since 1994.


    this is not true

    and Id say PJ, Bruce, U2, and perhaps REM
    there are not than many others that have been making music for more than 15-20 years that are still relevant and that fill MSG like the stones, zep etc...
  • catch22
    catch22 Posts: 1,081
    radiohead33 wrote:
    They are popular in their niche, they have a cult fan base basically. Just like when Chuck Palanhiuk releases a new book or something. he has a rabid fanbase.

    i really dont think you guys are right on this. yes pearl jam can still sell out venues across the world, and yes, their albums are never ever complete commercial flops, but anyone who suggests they are in anyway "popular" is insane to put it lightly.

    This band built their careers around pissing off commercial and scene fans. ed admits that no code was basically an attempt to lose fans. the ticketmaster thing lost them millions of dollars and millions of fans. and I dont think those fans have come back.

    how many albums do you think the rolling stones sell when they release a new one? fact is, pearl jam are more than a niche band. EVERYBODY knows who they are, even if they don't like them. they've headlined many major festivals the last few years. their name is legendary. sure, most people don't give a shit about their new album, but the same goes for the stones and that was ALWAYS the case for grateful dead, who were never a commercial success and are the definition of a cult following yet are your original example. how is pearl jam any different from the dead? they're not that different from the stones either. they're one of the most recognizable rock bands in the world, they have a catalogue that none of their peers can even come close to approaching.

    my brother hated pearl jam, when he listened to their greatest hits he was shocked how many songs he knew. fact is, this band has more huge hit songs than almost anyone else still touring. and people want to go see them when they play. pearl jam fits this bill to a tee, and i would be first to say if they didn't. hell, i've taken heat for saying they've been coasting on their name for years now. pearl jam is the stones of this generation... a band with a huge number of hits, instant worldwide recognition, a legendary live reputation, and a rabid fanbase that still cares about the albums. they defined their times and were the only serious competition the widely acknowledged leaders of the generation had (nirvana, just like the stones were to the beatles).

    who would you suggest?
    and like that... he's gone.
  • augustwest
    augustwest Posts: 739
    i was gonna say tom petty but um that goes back 25+ yrs

    how about rem?

Categories