Re: Greatest BAND Born In The 90's (poll)

in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/17/03 1:07 PM:

> "S Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
>> The amount of tickets sold never made me like or dislike a band (or anything
>> else for that matter). Metallica was better in 1983 than they are now and
>> they sell out many more arenas these days. Justin Timberlake still sells out
>> arenas too.  Of course he isn't making great music. <
> 
> I think when you're talking about a band that's truly GREAT, you have
> to factor in that band's impact on the consciousness of the masses.
> That doesn't mean the greatest band is the one that sells out the most
> arenas, but they clearly have to generate some legitimate activity on
> the radar screen.

If you only go on what has hit/affected the masses then you are only going
to be going with what was pushed during a given period. Like in this
instance it would be grunge most likely that would win out. I think the
general idea here was to pick what YOU consider to be the greatest band of
the 90's...no other real factors involved. The only real criteria I really
saw was first release was in the 90's.


 
> Consider those we can (hopefully) all agree are some greats: Beatles,
> Hendrix, Zep, Sabbath, Police, U2... They made a viable commercial
> impact because they touched a chord... in more than just a handful of
> musicians.
> 
> But you get some folks on this poll naming bands I've never even heard
> OF, much less heard. It's almost laughable. You can't confuse having a
> sweet spot in your heart for cult heroes (and I do... for many) with
> GREATNESS.

Just because everyone out there doesn't know a band/artist doesn't make them
any less talented or that they are any less viable. King's X would be
totally eliminated from every best band list or poll automatically ;0)
A band like The Tea Party that I put at the top of my choices for this is
not a household name, but they are one of the most talented bands out there
and take risks and have done their own thing (not what is hip or cool at the
moment.) Just because you or anyone else may not have heard of a certain
band doesn't make them any less of a band then one you have IMO. King's X is
one of the best bands out there (and all time) but the masses don't know
them and they have only had an impact mainly in influencing other musicians
for the most part. If anything it would indicate that you should get out
there and check out some of this stuff you have not heard.

Just because something got continuous airplay doesn't mean that that song or
that band is the best thing going. I think you got this whole thing wrong
when focusing on the masses and if they were impacted by it in some form as
a measure of greatness...not how I would do it. That just means commercial
success, which could have come from having a great promoter/manager, or a
look that went over well, or some gimmick that took off. All those type of
things are not a factor in how good or great a band is. When I think of
greatness I think of it in the talent of the members/artists and how thier
work stands up over time and how solid the material has been over thier
career. Not necessarily how many copies they sold and how many people own
one or know who they are....



> Pearl Jam, AIC - Those are legitimate choices, though I wouldn't
> personally agree. Nirvana would be a logical nominee - probably the
> best - but I don't buy into all the hype quite so heavily.
> 
> But Bubble Blower? The Agonizers? Sweet Peter? Come on! Do you think
> that in 20 years you'll be able to buy the Bubble Blower boxed set? Or
> see a handful of people wearing their tee-shirts at the local Fair?
> 
> That's my two cents. Flame on Johnny Storm. :-)
> 
> John