Who is the defining artist of this generation?

[naiwf 0]

I actually don't mind Radiohead and think they're a very good group. I just grow tired of the people who proclaim them as one of those handful of essential groups in the history of music. To be fair though, I feel that same way about the Stones, Springsteen, the Beatles etc.

If you don't see how the Beatles influenced rock and popular music, I don't know what to tell you.

 

You misunderstood me. I get why people like the Stones, Beatles etc. and claim they're in the pantheon of greats. I was saying that I'm tired of people telling me that I should feel the same way. I just don't like that kind of music so it doesn't really matter to me how great they are because I won't be listening one way or the other.

[Darthtiki 0]

Granted most of the artists of this decade/generation has been pretty disposable, I can't believe no one has mentioned Linkin Park. I don't personally see them but they could be argued with big well recieved albums, some critical acclaim, etc.

[snuffbox 0]

I cant believe somebody actually mentioned linkinpark.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Wesley Willis.

[FroGG_NeaL 0]

Overeducated rich kids with useless degrees afraid of being doomed to a useless suburban existence due to the rapid advances of society in which technology has made so many things redundant, all that jazz.

 

 

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

Three tracks into HTTT and this is more boring than I remember. The rockout part of "2+2=5" is nice, though.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

Really fighting the temptation to skip to "There There."

[Guest Felonies!]

At least hit "Go to Sleep." and "We suck Young Blood.", though.

[ZGangsta 0]

Really fighting the temptation to skip to "There There."

Please spare us the running commentary of you listening to an album. For this thread at least.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

"Go to Sleep" just came on and yeah. Good song.

 

The problem with HTTT is the electronic elements never mesh with the straightforward songcraft. The album feels as if Radiohead wanted to make a record to appeal to the old rockist fans, but didn't want to lose the bleeps and boops. Compared to Kid A—which was the sound of a far more confident band—Hail to the Thief feels castrated.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

Really fighting the temptation to skip to "There There."

Please spare us the running commentary of you listening to an album. For this thread at least.

Ha.

[FroGG_NeaL 0]

No, do it. Kill this fucking thread.

 

It's a mess at this point.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

Nah, I'm already on my third beer.

[ZGangsta 0]

There have been some really good points made in this thread. As well, a lot of people are confusing 'defining' artist with 'artist I really like.'

Eminem was the first to come to mind, but I do agree with the sentiment that he doesn't really have the songs that will go down in music history for decades to come.

Someone made the point for Kelly Clarkson and I think that's a reasonable gamble. We'll have to see how well her next album does, but I think she's going to keep getting more and more popular.

Radiohead, no. When I think '1990s' the FIRST thing that pops into my mind is OK Computer, but since then have they proven to be a 'defining' artist.

The best point made is that these days everything's retro. There's been no new pop culture zeitgeist for a really long time.

 

I got this from Rolling Stone:

 

Top Tours of 2005

A rundown of the artists who've earned the most money so far this year:

 

1. U2

Gross: $236 million

Number of shows: 77

 

2. Elton John

Gross: $63 million

Number of shows: 58

 

3. Rod Stewart

Gross: $49 million

Number of shows: 58

 

4. Dave Matthews Band

Gross: $45 million

Number of shows: 51

 

5. Paul McCartney

Gross: $37 million

Number of shows: 17

 

6. Eagles

Gross: $36 million

Number of shows: 29

 

7. Jimmy Buffett

Gross: $35 million

Number of shows: 21

 

8. Motley Crue

Gross: $33 million

Number of shows: 81

 

9. Green Day

Gross: $32 million

Number of shows: 62

 

10. Bruce Springsteen

Gross: $25 million

Number of shows: 52

 

It was pretty much the same for 2004 (except I think Fleetwood Mac was in the top 5). Where are the modern popular music acts on there? Besides Green Day, there aren't any. Back in the 70s when bands like Zeppelin and the Stones were the defining acts of the time they were selling out huge arenas. Zeppelin did a few shows in the States (just them no other bands on the bill) that topped 90,000 in attendance. Today's MTV bands can not do huge arena shows. This isn't becasue of oversaturation or prices, it's because people don't get as connected with the music anymore.

 

So in conclusion, I also cast my vote for Wesley Willis

[ZGangsta 0]

Nah, I'm already on my third beer.

Well in that case please continue.

[snuffbox 0]

I will suffer chronic vomitting spells if it ends up being Dave Matthews Band.

[Annabelle 0]

not to sound ignorant. but WHY is radiohead so great? i ain't gonna denounce them or anything. but i want to know why. what is it about their music that makes them so revered? i don't think i get it.

[FroGG_NeaL 0]

Motley Crue, fuck yeah.

[snuffbox 0]

Radiohead--

 

I think they are a pretty good band with 4 cds that I really like. I dont consider them one of the greatest bands ever as some might but they could reach that level with some longevity. Their broad popularity of fans willing to pay sometimes ridiculous amounts for concert tickets is probably the biggest factor in them being a candidate for 'defining artist'. They have had a vast amount of critical praise and some mainstream notoriety since the mid/late '90s. When people look back on our times they might be 'THE' band that alot people remember as epitomizing their generation.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

not to sound ignorant. but WHY is radiohead so great? i ain't gonna denounce them or anything. but i want to know why. what is it about their music that makes them so revered? i don't think i get it.

I feel they've made two really good albums, one just plain good album and other stuff for which I feel indifference to outright disdain. So I'm not the best person to answer that question.

 

EDIT: See, because I've been drinking, it took me too long to make this post, in which a presumably sober snuffbox answered.

[Guest Felonies!]

"Go to Sleep" just came on and yeah. Good song.

 

The problem with HTTT is the electronic elements never mesh with the straightforward songcraft. The album feels as if Radiohead wanted to make a record to appeal to the old rockist fans, but didn't want to lose the bleeps and boops. Compared to Kid A—which was the sound of a far more confident band—Hail to the Thief feels castrated.

Funny you say that, since they think they had so much more "swagger" when they did HTTT. I agree with your assessment, the electronics aren't always integrated well. "Where I End And You Begin" does a good job of mixing the Ondes Martenot into a mostly guitar song, but then you've got "The Gloaming," and that's just a mess. The rest of it just seems to be "okay play a loop on the laptop while we just play a song we sketched out in '95"

[Lord of The Curry 0]

It's not knowing why you like Radiohead that makes liking them so awesome, banky.

 

Duh.

[snuffbox 0]

not to sound ignorant. but WHY is radiohead so great? i ain't gonna denounce them or anything. but i want to know why. what is it about their music that makes them so revered? i don't think i get it.

I feel they've made two really good albums, one just plain good album and other stuff for which I feel indifference to outright disdain. So I'm not the best person to answer that question.

 

EDIT: See, because I've been drinking, it took me too long to make this post, in which a presumably sober snuffbox answered.

 

Im ripped like Rush Limbaugh.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

Another point, what are we classing as 'our generation'?

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

Within the last decade is a fair estimate.

[Guest]

This discussion was pointless. It's impossible to pick one artist out of such a large hodge-podge of mediocrity.

 

Nobody shines that much.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

So Nirvana would be a little early? I'm not saying that's necessarily my pick, but I'm surprised they weren't mentioned.

[snuffbox 0]

Nirvana defined the first half of the 90's.

[Brett Favre 0]

Overeducated rich kids with useless degrees afraid of being doomed to a useless suburban existence due to the rapid advances of society in which technology has made so many things redundant, all that jazz.

 

Lol, what.

[Slayer 0]

Limp Bizkit is the defining artist of our generation. Our shitty, shitty, shitty generation.

Oh man, that would be enough to make me pull a Cobain