I don't think it's really that "drugs = better music."
I think it's "youth = better music."
IMO a lot of musicians make better stuff when they are younger, wilder, and have more energy to devote to music. When they age and settle down, they get complacent and start sucking. Not always the case, of course.
Originally posted by jupiterone
i could say the same for nine inch nails but it's hard really, trent has been doing some amazing things lately, he's been branching out to creating more instrumentals and changing his sound a lot. plus, he really really respects his community in an obvious way, which a lot of artists don't do
and is he clean?
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I don't think it's really that "drugs = better music."
I think it's "youth = better music."
IMO a lot of musicians make better stuff when they are younger, wilder, and have more energy to devote to music. When they age and settle down, they get complacent and start sucking. Not always the case, of course.
Come on man. Not in America, unless you want to include girls and soft pop sounding songs
Well, Manchester was fervent with new ideas when Oasis was created. There was the whole madchester movement a bit earlier, and loads of innovative artists were popping up everywhere (The Chemical Brothers is also from Manchester, for example, and was formed just one year after Oasis).
As a "post-Madchester" band, Oasis blended some of the then new trends with something that resembled more rock music as we know it.
Guns'n'Roses, on the other hand... it seems to me that they were more like the apex of a genre than proper innovators. It was only a matter of time until something interesting came out of the demise of death metal...
And then there was Nirvana :)
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Well, Manchester was fervent with new ideas when Oasis was created. There was the whole madchester movement a bit earlier, and loads of innovative artists were popping up everywhere (The Chemical Brothers is also from Manchester, for example, and was formed just one year after Oasis).
As a "post-Madchester" band, Oasis blended some of the then new trends with something that resembled more rock music as we know it.
Guns'n'Roses, on the other hand... it seems to me that they were more like the apex of a genre than proper innovators. It was only a matter of time until something interesting came out of the demise of death metal...
And then there was Nirvana :)
I'm not debating Oasis' talent... they have some good songs and appeal to a broader base. I just think GnR's influence is much more notable. Axl Rose has got to be one of the best front men ever, especially when compared to those 2 Oasis brothers who were always crying in their beer like little girls when they disagreed with each other. GnR showed that hard rock/metal wasn't dead after the embarassment of the power ballad and hair band debacle, reigniting the movement. Oasis was just another pop/rock band from England selling a lot of records
Ian
In the last 15 years, Foo Fighters, Muse, Radiohead (although they do nothing for me mostly) and Queens of the stone age.
Vivid Boy
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
In the last 15 years, Foo Fighters, Muse, Radiohead (although they do nothing for me mostly) and Queens of the stone age.
muse???? are you kidding me???? you're going to put muse before you put white stripes???? you're going to put foo fighters before you put Rage???? radiohead and queens i have to agree with though
Ian
Muse have had 4 albums, sold out tours & are absolutely amazing live. Rage are actually someone who inspired the muse guys. As for White Stripes, they do nothing for me and for a lot of other people I know too. Always subject to taste but I'd probably put RHCP in there too, even if some of them are a bit 'mainstream' for some people, selling out big concerts, being popular & being able to write 3 or more excellent albums always proves talent imo
Rodrico
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Muse have had 4 albums, sold out tours & are absolutely amazing live. Rage are actually someone who inspired the muse guys. As for White Stripes, they do nothing for me and for a lot of other people I know too. Always subject to taste but I'd probably put RHCP in there too, even if some of them are a bit 'mainstream' for some people, selling out big concerts, being popular & being able to write 3 or more excellent albums always proves talent imo
LOL
KiNeTiC ENeRgY
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
In the last 15 years, Foo Fighters, Muse, Radiohead (although they do nothing for me mostly) and Queens of the stone age.
Radiohead Yes, the others...dun think so. Commercial crap
Vivid Boy
in EMF was better then MUSE even enigma was betetr then muse
and your forgetting, Smashing pumpkins, stone temple pilots, pearl jam, soundgarden
Rodrico
Lets recap this thread guys...
U2 and GnR are tied for the greatest of all time.
Led Zepplin was over rated.
Oasis is more influential than any other band of our time.
Creating 3 good albums, selling out shows, and being popular equate to being talented...by this standard, Nickelback is infact the most talented band of our generation folks.
and lastly, apparently Rage, RHCP, and The White Stripes are okay, but ing MUSE is the greatest ever.
Atleast someone in this thread gave some respect to Trent Reznor, who is actually an amazing artist of our time.
