Red Mosquito

MattA75 wrote:they're not #1, but Skynyrd should be mentioned as well as at least part of the conversation

surfndestroy wrote:It's interesting learning what people use as their criteria and what they deem as influential.

Van Halen versus R.E.M., it's a little like Risky Business versus Breakfast Club. One is throwing a big party and inviting you in and wants you to participate in their lifestyle. The other is about looking inward and accepting that alt/geek in you. Van Halen promoted a lifestyle and inviting people to their party. R.E.M. were more like shephards (at first at least) that attracted like minded individuals who accepted and appreciated that part within themselves that was attracted to R.E.M.'s music. It was alternative and wasn't looking to invite those from outside that club in. They slowly expanded their sound and accepted more people in but don't think there was ever the open invitation like Van Halen was throwing out. Whatever it is, two highly gifted bands that gave us some great albums with vastly different aesthetics and merits.

surfndestroy wrote:It's interesting learning what people use as their criteria and what they deem as influential.

Van Halen versus R.E.M., it's a little like Risky Business versus Breakfast Club. One is throwing a big party and inviting you in and wants you to participate in their lifestyle. The other is about looking inward and accepting that alt/geek in you. Van Halen promoted a lifestyle and inviting people to their party. R.E.M. were more like shephards (at first at least) that attracted like minded individuals who accepted and appreciated that part within themselves that was attracted to R.E.M.'s music. It was alternative and wasn't looking to invite those from outside that club in. They slowly expanded their sound and accepted more people in but don't think there was ever the open invitation like Van Halen was throwing out. Whatever it is, two highly gifted bands that gave us some great albums with vastly different aesthetics and merits.

MattA75 wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:It's interesting learning what people use as their criteria and what they deem as influential.

Van Halen versus R.E.M., it's a little like Risky Business versus Breakfast Club. One is throwing a big party and inviting you in and wants you to participate in their lifestyle. The other is about looking inward and accepting that alt/geek in you. Van Halen promoted a lifestyle and inviting people to their party. R.E.M. were more like shephards (at first at least) that attracted like minded individuals who accepted and appreciated that part within themselves that was attracted to R.E.M.'s music. It was alternative and wasn't looking to invite those from outside that club in. They slowly expanded their sound and accepted more people in but don't think there was ever the open invitation like Van Halen was throwing out. Whatever it is, two highly gifted bands that gave us some great albums with vastly different aesthetics and merits.

I just think that on this board in particular, you're in for a hard row to hoe with anything Van Halen

surfndestroy wrote:

Blaine Ryan wrote:R.E.M.'s influence has been as widespread as any rock band's of the last 30 years, though I don't think it's necessarily always discernible. They didn't invent jangle-pop (or however you want to classify it) but they certainly popularized it, and there have been hundreds of bands who have co-opted the style from them since. This is still going on in today's indie-rock scene--Real Estate's self-titled and Days albums are two examples, off the top of my head. Hell, I liked The Decemberists' The King is Dead largely because it sounded like R.E.M. (at times, that is), which according to Colin Meloy--and considering Peter Buck guests on the record--isn't a coincidence. And Stephen Malkmus dedicated an entire song to how the band has impacted him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DvVYwXqFEE).

Their influence in populist circles has been just as vast. Groups like Counting Crows, U2, Coldplay, Nirvana, and, yes, Pearl Jam have cited the band's effect on them. Again, you couldn't necessarily deduce this from the music these bands make, at least not all of the time, but I think that largely has to do with how difficult it is to create a genuine facsimile of the R.E.M. sound. Regardless of which era of their career you're talking about, nobody has ever nor will ever sound like R.E.M. beyond a superficial resemblance, just as nobody will ever sound like the Beatles beyond a superficial resemblance, and in my mind that's far more indicative of greatness than selling 95 million albums or the fact that Eddie Van Halen is your guitarist.

I fully agree that on artistic merit R.E.M. is the better band but I think it's a copout to say they are as influential but the influence just can't be seen.

I think just alone on having two 10x platinum albums that VH's infleunce is going to be greater. That's twice that they pretty much captured the public's focus and imagination. At that level of saturation their influence is going far beyond just rock audiences and cross-pollinating into multiple genres for a generation to come. It becomes part of the DNA of music and influences pretty much everything after, acknowledged or not. Even if the influence on U2 is the Edge saying, well I can't do that so I'll go in another direction.

On a different note, surprised I haven't seen The Beastie Boys be mentioned.

Blaine Ryan wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Blaine Ryan wrote:R.E.M.'s influence has been as widespread as any rock band's of the last 30 years, though I don't think it's necessarily always discernible. They didn't invent jangle-pop (or however you want to classify it) but they certainly popularized it, and there have been hundreds of bands who have co-opted the style from them since. This is still going on in today's indie-rock scene--Real Estate's self-titled and Days albums are two examples, off the top of my head. Hell, I liked The Decemberists' The King is Dead largely because it sounded like R.E.M. (at times, that is), which according to Colin Meloy--and considering Peter Buck guests on the record--isn't a coincidence. And Stephen Malkmus dedicated an entire song to how the band has impacted him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DvVYwXqFEE).

Their influence in populist circles has been just as vast. Groups like Counting Crows, U2, Coldplay, Nirvana, and, yes, Pearl Jam have cited the band's effect on them. Again, you couldn't necessarily deduce this from the music these bands make, at least not all of the time, but I think that largely has to do with how difficult it is to create a genuine facsimile of the R.E.M. sound. Regardless of which era of their career you're talking about, nobody has ever nor will ever sound like R.E.M. beyond a superficial resemblance, just as nobody will ever sound like the Beatles beyond a superficial resemblance, and in my mind that's far more indicative of greatness than selling 95 million albums or the fact that Eddie Van Halen is your guitarist.

I fully agree that on artistic merit R.E.M. is the better band but I think it's a copout to say they are as influential but the influence just can't be seen.

I think just alone on having two 10x platinum albums that VH's infleunce is going to be greater. That's twice that they pretty much captured the public's focus and imagination. At that level of saturation their influence is going far beyond just rock audiences and cross-pollinating into multiple genres for a generation to come. It becomes part of the DNA of music and influences pretty much everything after, acknowledged or not. Even if the influence on U2 is the Edge saying, well I can't do that so I'll go in another direction.

On a different note, surprised I haven't seen The Beastie Boys be mentioned.

That wasn't really my point. So long as you're committed to the style, I don't think it's terribly difficult to sound like Van Halen. This is evidenced by the legion of '80's hard-rock bands who...sound like Van Halen. R.E.M. has the paradoxical distinction of being both a massively influential entity and a band that sounds like no one else. I'll concede that Roth and co. have probably had the greater commercial impact, but that strikes me as suspicious criteria for judging how good a band is and how much their music has mattered on an artistic level. It seems like, by your logic, Nickelback would be considered a Great (capital g) band, and that kind of makes my brain hurt.

Ultimately, I just think Van Halen and Aerosmith are terrible bands who have spawned equally terrible niche aesthetics. I realize this is completely subjective, but I shudder to think what it says about our culture if America's greatest musical accomplishment truly is the dudes who wrote "Hot for Teacher."

surfndestroy wrote:

matt reeder wrote:That is taking into account influence, longevity and output. Van Halen probably belongs but they only released 2 albums that I think are classics. I discounted Guns & Roses because they only released 1 classic album and half of another.

If you're a guitarist, there is before and after Eddie Van Halen and Van Halen l. I can't imagine being much more influential than that.
Same could be said for Appetite For Destruction. That album changed the industry for a decade. I do not think that Nirvana and/or grunge would have had the popularity they did without GnR paving the way sonically and bringing raw guitars to the public domain again.

I think Beastie Boys should be included on your list. ZZ Top should consider some mention, and your list is definitely missing KISS. I dislike them but I can't deny them their due.

matt reeder wrote:The Beastie Boys aren't rock and roll to me

matt reeder wrote:ZZ Top is completely irrelevant now.

surfndestroy wrote:

matt reeder wrote:ZZ Top is completely irrelevant now.

ZZ Top is still a functioning, recording and touring band. 40 plus year career with the same three members the whole time. Over 25 million sales in the US, one 10 million+ selling album, 4 more platinum+ albums and 7 top 40 singles. They basically wrote the book on making videos. I'm not sure how they can be dismissed as irrelevant now.

doug rr wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

matt reeder wrote:ZZ Top is completely irrelevant now.

ZZ Top is still a functioning, recording and touring band. 40 plus year career with the same three members the whole time. Over 25 million sales in the US, one 10 million+ selling album, 4 more platinum+ albums and 7 top 40 singles. They basically wrote the book on making videos. I'm not sure how they can be dismissed as irrelevant now.

ZZ tops first 5 or 6 albums before they hit it big are very good..basically anything before eliminator

cutuphalfdead wrote:

matt reeder wrote:The Beastie Boys aren't rock and roll to me

absurd

matt reeder wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

matt reeder wrote:The Beastie Boys aren't rock and roll to me

absurd

Eh. I always classified them as hip-hop. They're somewhere in between.

Anyway, isn't this a thread about REM?

matt reeder wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

matt reeder wrote:The Beastie Boys aren't rock and roll to me

absurd

Eh. I always classified them as hip-hop. They're somewhere in between.

Anyway, isn't this a thread about REM?

bada wrote:I took the Hagar years seriously. 5150 rules.