some of the bands i see talked about on here or pitchfork are all so efeminite and tender and nerdy,nirvana and guns n roses just went 4 the gut, they remind me of 'pac. i love nirvana and think the are way better than any post punk, brit pop arty farty guardian reader type rock.

eh...yeah..nirvana is definitely a pretty strong contender for that title. i'd keep REM and radiohead in the discussion too, but nirvana were/are pretty golden.

At times, Nirvana could be all of these things. Which is a good thing.

very very true.

30 years is a long time

What year is it again?

Wait, so this covers like New Order and the Vivian Girls and stuff then.

Yeah, disagree.

testosterone laden music

:gay:
:asseating:

haha!

Don't see why tender and efeminite (by which I assume you mean willing to betray emotion other than anger) disqualify music from being considered great.

Anyways, imo Radiohead are the best band since the Beatles. I can see a case for Pink Floyd (for being the best band since the Beatles, not the best band of the last 30 years, seeing as their run would start with The Wall), not so much REM. Never cared for Nirvana too much, but never put much time into them either.

bcuz emotionz r 4 fggts
what aw yoo, wicked quee-ah?

Nirvana would have to be a contender, but I'd have to go with Radiohead. I'm not even going to try to choose between Nevermind and OK Computer, but after that Nirvana only have one really good album (In Utero) and one average one (Bleach). Radiohead have, by my count, three masterpieces (The Bends, OKC, Kid A), two really good albums (Amnesiac, In Rainbows), one good one (HTTT) and one average one (Pablo Honey). It's a bit unfair of a comparison seeing as Nirvana only lasted long enough to make three albums, but if you're going to be the best of the last 30 years, you'd have to be money on all of them to earn that title. Radiohead have that. There are other contenders too like R.E.M., and I'd even throw in the White Stripes, although I know a lot of people aren't that high on them. However, I just can't see any of those topping Radiohead and their run (which may not be over yet).

I'd say R.E.M. has a much stronger claim than Radiohead do. Generally considered the leaders of the American college/indie rock scene of the '80s, put out five or six albums generally considered masterpieces, first alternative band to become hugely popular and in doing so redefined pop music in the early '90s. Plus they managed to remain relevant artists for fifteen years (Radiohead have just about matched that number, although they're much less prolific than R.E.M. were in their day). Radiohead can claim some of the above, but they probably don't have the across-the-board influence that R.E.M. had because they aren't really a mainstream band and haven't been since Karma Police was a mid-level hit.

You're confusing "greatest band of the last 30 years" with "bigger critically acclaimed band of the last 30 years". There's definitely an argument for R.E.M. though.

Oasis

Most inventive, best live show, best band of the last 20.

The discussion in this thread is all over the place. Some people seem to be discussing the "biggest" band, some people are discussing the "greatest" (). In either case, suggesting R.E.M. seems a bit ridiculous. I'd consider myself an R.E.M. "fan" but this board just places way too much importance on this band.

New Order seems a fine suggestion, not many bands have such an incredible run of both albums and singles, especially the singles. You can't argue with that shit. I'd throw out The Smiths as well but as much as I'd like to believe I can't see that 4 year output as the "greatest band ofthe last 30 years." Bands like R.E.M., Oasis (shudder) have settled into their own comfortable sound, sually with mediocre results. Dunno about applying "greatest" to anything like that.

Radiohead, ehh. Subpar first album, lack of any real "singles" force. There seems to be a benchmarking of The Beatles in this thread. The Beatles were successful with both singles and albums. Each had their own identity and you could enjoy The Beatles as much exclusively focusing on singles as you could focusing on albums. Which lends even more credence to Duff's (possibly sarcastic?) selection of New Order. They had mostly great albums, and amazing singles, and you would have a fantastic time with the band even if you chose to ignore one aspect of their output. Furthermore, they had such a massive impact on all sorts of music in the 80s, something that, say, Radiohead or R.E.M. haven't really done.

Although I don't want to get into the argument of perceivable influence equalling greatness or something, as that seems like an awfully Montanaesque angle.

So I dunno. Not Nirvana. New Order, I guess. I'd sooner say Joy Division but they started over 30 years ago. Or Mayhem or something. I like Mayhem, fantastic band, you should check them out sometime. Inconsistent output but all of it is great in its own way.

Surprised Liffey didn't say Animal Collective.

More than 75% of the music I listen to was released in the last 30 years (probably). The Smiths are my gut answer to this question as well, but it's really not a debate I want to get too involved in.

Couple The Smiths entire output with most of the solo Morrissey catalogue (especially Bona Drag) and you've got yourself a worthy answer, I think. However, I'm sure most would disagree and I can certainly see why.

Smiths had that wonderful combination of excellent albums and notable singles as well.

Don't forget to take The World Won't Listen and Hatful of Hollow into consideration. Six wonderful albums is more than you can credit many bands who'll be mentioned with.

Not sure if it's fair to include those, but when you do, that's a hell of a run, perfection.

Also, thank you for picking The World Won't Listen over Louder Than Bombs. The latter has such terrible sequencing.

I brought in the issue of mainstream success because people interested in alternative/underground music tend to underrate it's importance. The Beatles were influential because they made great music, but most people are in a position to be influenced by them because they were so unbelievably huge. Radiohead's influence (which is a big part of 'greatness') is relatively small compared to the Beatles (but whose isn't?) partially because their audience is much smaller. One could argue that less people are influenced by R.E.M.'s best records today because they weren't huge sellers and their image is tied to their early '90s work. As far as 'greatness' as an aesthetic value, I think R.E.M.'s catalogue stacks up well against Radiohead, or New Order for that matter. I'm just not sure that there have been many artists who have managed to put together a fifteen year streak of great and/or relevant records over the last thirty. Tom Waits maybe? U2, although they've put out so many bad records it's hard to consider them...

79-09 is a long time.

it covers the clash from london calling through to break up, the majority of the cure, the entirety of the smiths, rem, radiohead, flaming lips...

all vs a band with three (albeit very good, excellent, and brilliant) albums to their credit in that time period.

so, no, we can't agree.

Nirvana fuckin' rules.

I remember when Nirvana was my favourite band. Feels like ages ago. Solid band though. I'm glad they have the reputation that they do though, better them than some other band.

do a lot of kids (pre and teens) even know who Nirvana is? maybe they have a song on rock band or something that will turn them on

I didn't know what Nirvana was until I heard "You Know You're Right" when it came out in 2001, and my reaction was something like "What the fuck is this shit?" only without the profanity because I was a sheltered little 11 year old. 4 years later and I was infatuated though. Take that as you will. I would think Nirvana would be one of those rock-bands-elevated-by-Rock-Band, kinda like Weezer or Yeah Yeah Yeahs, but I don't recall ever playing any Nirvana songs in that brief period where I played those games.

not even close





Face it - Nirvana had probably 50 40 30 great songs, at most.

And Guided By Voices has 700 mediocre songs.

yes, and about 850 great ones.

Hmm..when you look a the discogs.....

In a Priest Driven Ambulance
Hit to Death In the Future Head
Transmissions From the Satellite Heart
Clouds Taste Mettalic
Zaireeka
The Soft Bulletin
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots

...this one seems particularly strong.

I'm not so sure Radiohead's audience is as small as you think they are, although you aren't the only one to think that way. Using Last.fm as a barometer, it's easy to tell that Radiohead has a gratuitous amount of listeners. As of this writing, Radiohead has 182,539,162 plays, and the Beatles have 180,529,683. I realize that this is a very flawed system as Last.fm appeals mostly to 16-25 year olds, but it shows that Radiohead have a huge audience.

Nirvana was so important and significant and grea.t

Everybody who posted in this thread please delete all the posts you made, they're embarrassing.

Nirvana def had the most impact pound for pound.

didn't realize kids these days don't know who nirvana are or got into them through 'you know you're right'. makes me feel old.

but i'm not old enough to have ever listened to REM. am i missing anything? (doubt i'll listen to them anyway, missed it, moving on....)

i used to think that radiohead were one of the bigger (most well known) bands around these days. especially after in rainbows, when alt/experimental/hipster was 'in' and my frat-bro neighbor asked me to burn him a copy. now after realizing that kids don't even know who nirvana are, i'm not so sure.....maybe only a relatively small group of people around my age group know radiohead. my whole world's been turned upside down....up = down, black = azn....

less albums a band puts out + sooner important band member kills self = greater impact

Down is the new up.

Nirvana changed culture.Not many bands can lay claim to changing culture. Nirvana is the definitive band of the 1990's. They opened the door to "independent" and "difficult" music while being neither on an independent label nor playing particularly difficult music. Nirvana temporarily killed off a musical genre/rendered a musical genre uncool (hair metal) while popularizing another. They wrote amazing pop songs that sounded like they meant something. They sold albums. They knocked Michael Jackson off the top of the charts. Raging live band. They brought huge attention to a city's amazing music scene that became an international phenomenon (due respect to Pearl Jam). They changed how kids dressed (due respect to all Seattle bands at that time).

Yes, the Lips and Radiohead and Guns N' Roses are amazing, have stellar discographies, great live shows, perfected their genres, etc. But did they change culture?

Joe Strummer, Mick Jones, Paul Simonen and Topper Headon all give a collective "fuck off" to the thread title.

1. Radiohead
(Masterpieces)
a. Kid A
b. In Rainbows
c. OK Computer

2. Nirvana
(Masterpiece)
a. Nevermind
(Fucking Good)
b. In Utero

3. Animal Collective
(Fucking Great)
a. Sung Tongs
b. Strawberry Jam
c. (some would say, but not me) Feels
d. Merriweather Post Pavilion

4. Flaming Lips

5. Spoon

edit

6. Queens of the Stone Age = Sonic Youth

i'm gonna stop ya there -

well i'm going to take a shit on your lips

This board couldn't even agree on water being wet

Nirvana was the most important band of the last 30 years for me personally and probably a lot of people near my age.

The Smiths are the greatest band of the last 30 years for perfection, I don't think they have 1 song I dislike; I will even hum along to Golden Lights.

REM was close until Bill Berry left

but make no mistake there is nothing that can compare to seeing Nirvana live when they were on!!!!!

for me

Greatest last 30 years

The Smiths
Nirvana
Clash
REM
Metallica

right before i made the historical "shitting on lips" post of 09 i noticed that your screen name is "knives" i had been reading it for months as the pronunciation, "Kay - Nees"

shit i fucked up. move My Bloody Valentine to my #2 spot. Loveless is the best album ever recorded but as a band they can't compete with Radiohead for the overarching term "greatest."

nirvana sucks dour grunge shit.

I'd say Radiohead's "pay what you want" scheme has caused enough of a stir to count.

eh. water, in its early phase, was a balmy mist at best. these days water is straight up frozen, it's not going anywhere - i'd hardly call it "wet".
granted, in water's heyday, it was definitely wet. but 1 (maybe 2?) phases out of 3 does not make water "wet"
in conclusion, you're a jagoff