Discussion in 'Music' started by Winbot, Nov 24, 2016.
Sergio Oliva and Phil Heath don't make the list? What about The Rock?
No, no, and no. Why do I care about the rock? He makes fucking horrible cheesy movies and I hated his stupid eyebrow gimmick in wrestling. Only watchable movie he made is Pain and Gain.
You guys aren't looking at the big picture with Destroy Three Bands. I am more interested in the consequences of a group's music, not how good or bad it is.
Whatever three black rappers or singers influenced the most people toward garbage ghetto culture.
Would probably include NWA then.
That's basically what MM posted, although the Beastie Boys are white they had a huge hand in making rap accessible to white people. They also dissed mullets.
To this day I refuse to listen to Slayer because Kerry King collaborated with the Beastie Boys on fight for your right to party.
Guys ... when rappers die does it change anything?
Come on Win, I'm talking about what MM posted on the first page of the thread. There's no question that those three groups were the ones most responsible for rap becoming popular. Rappers dying has nothing to do with anything, the genre itself just could have very easily been relegated to the dustbin of history.
Even though the 1991 Nielsen soundscan wasn't a group, could we eliminate that from history? The final death blow to popular music and culture in the west is a direct result of this. They found out that NWA, Nirvana, and Garth Brooks were the biggest sellers and then rap and country became disproportionately marketed shortly thereafter. It would have been much more preferable if record stores and radio stations kept lying about what was popular instead of gracing us with the likes of gangster rap and alternative rock.
Credit also belongs to MM on Nielsen, he posted about it on the old forum in the death of white people music thread.
It does when they are "aspiring rappers" who die before they get famous. We're spared whatever they would have done.
There was also a law passed around the same time that allowed companies o buy up multiple radio stations without a vettng procedure or any particular mandate. This also
helped speed up the homogenisation of popular music
Oh shit, sorry Etzel but can you PLEASE USE YOUR REAL FUCKING NAME WHAT THE FUCK. I'm not fucking happy that everyone changed their names and avatars, that is figuratively your soul's image in my monkeysphere, now you're just a bunch of rotten miscreants I can't be assed to get to know!
Also what the FUCK is wrong with my avatar. Fix that shit Winbot!
Good point, except I would never axe Nickelback and was in fact arguing the opposite: propping them up, and bands like them.
Bleach and self-titled were good albums, In Utero was sort of weird but still pretty good. Nirvana was a good band but without them the 'grunge' movement was just a bunch of Black Sabbath fans making dark metal with Led Zeppelin influences, so I can't disagree with you out of hand. My argument was eliminating three pioneering emo bands.
Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Mudhoney, Pearl Jam, Candlebox... these bands were badass, had strong metal influences, and had epic guitar solos. Nirvana dominates the current grunge landscape but the reality is that Nirvana was a weirdo outlier.
Not sure what you mean in regards to Nirvana being the flagship grunge band. Pearl Jam is the biggest rock band since Stones/Zeppelin/The Who. I believe 'arena rock' was coined to describe Pearl Jam. Eddie Vedder pioneered crowd surfing and Mike McCready kept the guitar solo alive for another fifteen years in popular music single-handedly thanks to 'Alive'. Soundgarden was already a big deal in the late 80's during the SubPop 'Ultra Mega OK/Bad Motorfinger' days and the momentum was strong. Alice in Chains would have been as successful if not more so without Nirvana. If anything, Kurt Cobain's suicide and addiction problems probably hurt the grunge movement in the short term.
Shatner, you're corny as fuck bro!
There's no way to make massive changes in the industry with only 3 bands nuked but I think it can be a genuine good deed when done right.
Pearl Jam haha ... sorry but they are not as influencial as you think, you've been on the west coast too long. I will say Pearl Jam is basically Rolling Stones Part II ... extremely successful but also burdened with being a generic summary of their own genre with no way of escaping it.
Winbot, you love to talk about shit you simply don't understand with an air of casual confidence. Pearl Jam is not derivative.
Haha whatever you say! Link me some innovative Pearl Jam songs.
Link me anything 'innovative' by Toto, you can't! You may not like Pearl Jam but that does not make them a cookie cutter band. Here are some songs I can't imagine any other band writing.
They stick to a rock formula for the most part, but nobody sounded like them before they came around, and lots of bands emulated them hard afterwards. Yield was very esoteric, Binaural perhaps more so. Riot Act was a masterpiece and came out when most big contemporary rock bands were still trying to copy Ten.
They're fine but not for me. It's not like I chose them for one of my three nukes! I'd rather take out Nirvana.
Toto's members were classically trained, go listen to the soundtrack to Dune it's a pretty innovative mixture of electronic and traditional orchestration.
So they copied Tangerine Dream? INNOVATIVE
The Beastie Boys were Jewish.
I'm back hating FM rock radio in California.
Separate names with a comma.