Best Rock Band formed after 1985

[tbone_ 14134]

In a subcategory of bands that "could've been one of the best best rock bands", I think Blind Melon would have done great things. 

Slow Roosevelt

[jimmyjazz 46000]

It's not a playing thing, it's Duritz.  He just can't be bothered to sing the actual melodies on the record.  I've seen them 3 times and it was the same problem every time.  The band itself is good.

[Art Vandelay 1712]

53 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not a playing thing, it's Duritz.  He just can't be bothered to sing the actual melodies on the record.  I've seen them 3 times and it was the same problem every time.  The band itself is good.

Yep. I've never seen them live but my girlfriend, who is a huge CC fan, always insists on playing a live album of theirs in her car and it is absolutely brutal to listen to. And it's 100% because of Duritz's refusal to sing the melody.  It's really annoying.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

55 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

Yep. I've never seen them live but my girlfriend, who is a huge CC fan, always insists on playing a live album of theirs in her car and it is absolutely brutal to listen to. And it's 100% because of Duritz's refusal to sing the melody.  It's really annoying.

T-Bone Burnett should have won a Grammy just for getting that twat to actually produce something listenable in the studio. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Don't overthink it.   It's Nirvana, followed by Pearl Jam.  

And fuck Oasis. No fucking way. 

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

Morphine

[EMAWesome 101]

On 5/24/2018 at 12:28 AM, Paul Wesley said:

Black Crowes are in the discussion.  

Black Crowes are the discussion.

[Hamttx 421]

How in the hell do you determine “best”?

[tbone_ 14134]

How in the hell do you determine “best”?

You can just ask me.

[Mileslong 4728]

Smashing Pumpkins
Counting Crows
Augustana
Nirvana
Stone Temple Pilots

[Dbeasy 15075]

Every single band listed pales in comparison to the top rock bands before 1985. I never realized that. Some may disagree. That’s okay. You are entitled to your wrong opinion.

[Radical Larry 28656]

On 5/26/2018 at 11:02 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

Agree 100%.  That self titled album had some brilliant tunes.

Soup was pretty good, too. 

[BoomMF 1399]

Every single band listed pales in comparison to the top rock bands before 1985. I never realized that. Some may disagree. That’s okay. You are entitled to your wrong opinion.

Nirvana may be top 5 all time. Had doofus not shot himself and they put a few more albums under their belt (in my dream scenario they tap Grohl's as yet undiscovered song writing talent) they'd be a lock.

Pales in comparison might be little strong. And by little I mean a lot.

[Dbeasy 15075]

Nirvana may be top 5 all time. Had doofus not shot himself and they put a few more albums under their belt (in my dream scenario they tap Grohl's as yet undiscovered song writing talent) they'd be a lock.

Pales in comparison might be little strong. And by little I mean a lot.

Agree that if Nirvana had a larger body of work they would have been up there.

[Hanrahan 1306]

They are up there, slap shot, short body of work or not.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

Yeah, regardless of "body of work", Nirvana is easily in the top 10 all time rock band discussion.  Their hit-to-miss ratio rivaled The Beatles.  I can't think of a modern band that was even close.

[EMAWesome 101]

The only top ten list Nirvana belongs in is the top ten rock bands whose every song is structured by a slow build up through the verse to rocked out chorus back to slow build up through the verse into rocked out chorus back into slow build up in the verse into rocked out chorus...............................

They were a one trick pony especially compared to a band like Zeppelin or the Dead (or hell even the Beatles and I think the Beatles are overrated) who you could hear different influences and structures in damn near every song they did.

 

 

[Hamttx 421]

34 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, regardless of "body of work", Nirvana is easily in the top 10 all time rock band discussion.  Their hit-to-miss ratio rivaled The Beatles.  I can't think of a modern band that was even close.

Top 10 of all time....Nirvana? No fucking way. If anything it tells me more about your age and what has influenced you up to this point in your life then the topic at hand. And why I asked up the thread what everyone was using as their criteria. 

But to make such a statement without something specific shits on a lot of acts who lasted longer, had more sales, were more influential and received more critical acclaim from their own peers including making shit tons more money then Nirvana ever thought of. Off the top of my head acts like the Grateful Dead, The Beatles, Stones, Hendrix,  Dylan, the Who, Santana, Crosby, Stills Nash and Young. Along with a decade of Southern acts like the Allman Brothers, Skynard, Marshall Tucker, Charlie Daniels. And the other British Invasion guys like Clapton, Zepplin, Deep Purple, Mott the Hoople etc, hold down any spot above Nirvana other then some specific criteria like “Seattle based bands only”. 

Hell, Nirvana isn’t even in the fucking top 50. If anything they remind me of a poor man’s Cream. A 60’s supergroup who like Nirvana exploded on the scene with a couple of really bad ass albums and then just as quick were gone. And in their case all three members, Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker and Clapton continued to do their thing for decades after they collaborated. And though it is possible, one can only “assume” Kurt would have been able to stay relevant in a crazy busy like music where tastes change very quickly. He could have very easily been pigeon holed in qrundge and never been able to evolve out of that genre. Grohl on the other hand has shown what we would have missed had he not had the opportunity to get out from behind his kit. He has many skills.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

7 hours ago, Hamttx said:

Top 10 of all time....Nirvana? No fucking way. If anything it tells me more about your age and what has influenced you up to this point in your life then the topic at hand.

Well, maybe.  Except I was 28 years old when "Nevermind" broke, and was always a voracious consumer of music.

You seem triggered.  It's gonna be OK.  And the Grateful Dead sucks.

[hookem48 4701]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 11:22 AM, tbone_ said:

Pretty sure both sets of my grandparents were convinced Elvis was the devil.

my dad saw Elvis perform at the opening of a feed store in Carthage, Tx.

[irishtexan 11522]

I knew we'd get to the point of arguing the subjective. Way to go people. I'm proud of how predictable we are.

Counting Crows and Black Crowes don't make the list because they write boring music for boring people who otherwise don't really like music. There's nothing challenging about their music or their lyrics. It's mom rock. How's that for a hot take?

Edited May 29, 2018 by irishtexan

[BoomMF 1399]

my dad saw Elvis perform at the opening of a feed store in Carthage, Tx.

I was JUST at the Louisiana Hayride museum in Shreveport, but it was called something else, so this doesn't really hit that close to home but kinda does.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

40 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

I knew we'd get to the point of arguing the subjective. Way to go people. I'm proud of how predictable we are.

Counting Crows and Black Crowes don't make the list because they write boring music for boring people who otherwise don't really like music. There's nothing challenging about their music or their lyrics. It's mom rock. How's that for a hot take?

Your mom is a hot take.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

10 hours ago, Hamttx said:

Top 10 of all time....Nirvana? No fucking way. If anything it tells me more about your age and what has influenced you up to this point in your life then the topic at hand. And why I asked up the thread what everyone was using as their criteria. 

But to make such a statement without something specific shits on a lot of acts who lasted longer, had more sales, were more influential and received more critical acclaim from their own peers including making shit tons more money then Nirvana ever thought of. Off the top of my head acts like the Grateful Dead, The Beatles, Stones, Hendrix,  Dylan, the Who, Santana, Crosby, Stills Nash and Young. Along with a decade of Southern acts like the Allman Brothers, Skynard, Marshall Tucker, Charlie Daniels. And the other British Invasion guys like Clapton, Zepplin, Deep Purple, Mott the Hoople etc, hold down any spot above Nirvana other then some specific criteria like “Seattle based bands only”. 

Hell, Nirvana isn’t even in the fucking top 50. If anything they remind me of a poor man’s Cream. A 60’s supergroup who like Nirvana exploded on the scene with a couple of really bad ass albums and then just as quick were gone. And in their case all three members, Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker and Clapton continued to do their thing for decades after they collaborated. And though it is possible, one can only “assume” Kurt would have been able to stay relevant in a crazy busy like music where tastes change very quickly. He could have very easily been pigeon holed in qrundge and never been able to evolve out of that genre. Grohl on the other hand has shown what we would have missed had he not had the opportunity to get out from behind his kit. He has many skills.

The only rock bands you named that are clearly ahead of or peers with Nirvana are the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Hendrix, the Who, and the Grateful Dead, so you aren't exactly undermining his point.   I suppose Dylan if you count that as rock.   Mott the fucking Hoople?  Get the fuck out of here with that weak shit. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, maybe.  Except I was 28 years old when "Nevermind" broke, and was always a voracious consumer of music.

You seem triggered.  It's gonna be OK.  And the Grateful Dead sucks.

The Dead are the greatest American band, but aside from that, I agree with you. 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

The Dead are the greatest American band, but aside from that, I agree with you. 

Avatar checks out.

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

Nirvana obviously.

Neutral Milk Hotel made one album amazing and influential enough to be right up here.

Some honorable mentions with smaller,  less consistent, or less influential overall catalogs who nonetheless made some of the very best rock songs and albums:

The Breeders (“Pod” is insanely good, and arguably the purest example of Steve Albini doing his thing)

The Unicorns (only four years in existence, dropped one of the best albums ever in year 3)

The Shins

The White Stripes

Green Day (in the mid 90s)

Smashing Pumpkins (in the early-mid 90s)

The Distillers

The Yeah Yeah Yeahs

The Strokes

The Decemberists

Voxtrot (purely on the strength of their first EP)

Edited May 29, 2018 by Thermos H. Christ

[Grippe 313]

This thread is proof of why we can't have nice things.

(casting another vote for Nirvana, by a Secretariat lead)

[Dbeasy 15075]

The Nirvana vs No Nirvana argument doesn’t seem to be breaking along age lines. Interesting.

[Mez2 4025]

RATM

[jimmyjazz 46000]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

The Nirvana vs No Nirvana argument doesn’t seem to be breaking along age lines. Interesting.

I always hated that "well you were probably a teenager who didn't know jack when Nirvana broke" argument.  I had spent nearly 20 years buying albums (and then CDs) of all kinds of music by the time the 1990s rolled around.  I owned (and still own) everything from Led Zeppelin to Chuck Mangione to P/Funk to Gustav Holst.  (I have never sold or intentionally gotten rid of any recording, ever.)

The 1980s were a tough decade with a few great hit-making acts (The Police, REM, U2, Prince, The Cure, The Pretenders) largely steamrolled by pop pablum (Whitney Houston, the single biggest waste of a phenomenal voice in pop history) and hair metal.  A lot of folks like me retreated to "college radio" where we could hear The Replacements, Violent Femmes, Superchunk, Afghan Whigs, Throwing Muses, and Sonic Youth.  In THAT context Nirvana was like a flood that lifted all boats.  Suddenly the kind of music we had been listening to was all over the radio, but better.

Yeah, it's not an age thing.  If you were a teenager Nirvana was probably to you what Cheap Trick was to me.  If you were a young adult they were a godsend that signaled the end of shit (and unfortunately soon thereafter a new era of a different kind of shit).  If you were even older, they were a flashback to how you probably felt when Queen started to explode.

[BoomMF 1399]

^Failed to mention Metallica in list of notable 80s band that did some amazing shit amongst the muck and mire of day-glo pop dominated decade... I need to work through this pain.

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

Nirvana’s best album came out in 2009

[4th&Five 41571]

I LOVED Nirvana and was a crushed 14 year old when he killed himself. For some reason though I don’t listen to them much anymore and when I do a lot of the stuff I loved just doesn’t hold up for me. 

[Apep 645]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

The Nirvana vs No Nirvana argument doesn’t seem to be breaking along age lines. Interesting.

I'm 38 now. I was 12 years old and in 6th grade when I spent Christmas break watching "Smells Like Teen Spirit" creep up MTV's Top 10 chart, finally knocking off G'n'R's "November Rain" to claim the number one spot. Honestly, I don't know how to assess Nirvana's impact. Punk became a legitimate, hit-making genre, but we got Green Day, Blink182, Fall Out Boy, and tons of emo bands.  Looking back at the 1990s, the SoundScan revolution, and grunge. Nirvana is sort of like Pink Floyd: Everyone wears the shirts and buys the albums, but there was never a clear successor and their influence is diffuse.

 

[BoomMF 1399]

I'm curious as to what a clear successor means to you. My first blush response is that none of the few bands ahead of Nirvana on the all time list had successors in the way I think that word is defined. They, all the bands on the GOAT short list, were one-off moments in time that crystallized a musical generation with no obvious replacement, evolved or otherwise.

[BoomMF 1399]

Also, do you not consider Nirvana to have, among several different ancestors, a punk lineage? Are they not in that family tree? They pull from a number of genres, but certainly punk is one of them. (Nirvana seem to take a hard rock and punk ethos and meld it with Beatles pop melodic sensibilities. But punk is definately in the brew.)

 

 

 

 

[Apep 645]

"Clear successor" is a poor choice of words. "Readily identifiable influence" (or "ripped off") would be a better term. We can look at songs in, let's say, the Stone Temple Pilots' catalog and say, "That's a Zep knock-off." Or, "That's a Beatles knock-off." Even with newer music, we can still do that, asking facetiously if certain bands "think it is 1973 (or whatever year is relevant)". The popular styles of punk in the last 25 years seem to owe just as much or more to pre-existing pop-punk lineages than Nirvana.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

BoomMF alluded to it -- sometimes a band doesn't spawn many knockoffs because their sound is so original that it's hard to create in that style.  It's a helluva lot easier to copy The Ramones than it is Nirvana.

[C-Man 27239]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I always hated that "well you were probably a teenager who didn't know jack when Nirvana broke" argument.  I had spent nearly 20 years buying albums (and then CDs) of all kinds of music by the time the 1990s rolled around.  I owned (and still own) everything from Led Zeppelin to Chuck Mangione to P/Funk to Gustav Holst.  (I have never sold or intentionally gotten rid of any recording, ever.)

The 1980s were a tough decade with a few great hit-making acts (The Police, REM, U2, Prince, The Cure, The Pretenders) largely steamrolled by pop pablum (Whitney Houston, the single biggest waste of a phenomenal voice in pop history) and hair metal.  A lot of folks like me retreated to "college radio" where we could hear the Pixies, The Replacements, Violent Femmes, Superchunk, Afghan Whigs, Throwing Muses, and Sonic Youth.  In THAT context Nirvana was like a flood that lifted all boats.  Suddenly the kind of music we had been listening to was all over the radio, but better.

Yeah, it's not an age thing.  If you were a teenager Nirvana was probably to you what Cheap Trick was to me.  If you were a young adult they were a godsend that signaled the end of shit (and unfortunately soon thereafter a new era of a different kind of shit).  If you were even older, they were a flashback to how you probably felt when Queen started to explode.

Added one for ya!

[Ollie Slatt 289]

Tier 1: Pearl Jam, Wilco, Nirvana

Tier 2: Pumpkins, RATM, Weezer (on strength of first 2 albums)  

 

If we want to include individuals, then I would throw Jeff Buckley and Ryan Adams into the discussion as well.  

 

I don't even particularly like Nirvana, but their place and importance in rock history cannot be denied.  

 

 

[tbone_ 14134]

Chuck Mangione

Man, how good was that guitar solo in Feels So Good...

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

It’s still Fugazi.

[BurntOrangeCrush 1011]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I always hated that "well you were probably a teenager who didn't know jack when Nirvana broke" argument.  I had spent nearly 20 years buying albums (and then CDs) of all kinds of music by the time the 1990s rolled around.  I owned (and still own) everything from Led Zeppelin to Chuck Mangione to P/Funk to Gustav Holst.  (I have never sold or intentionally gotten rid of any recording, ever.)

The 1980s were a tough decade with a few great hit-making acts (The Police, REM, U2, Prince, The Cure, The Pretenders) largely steamrolled by pop pablum (Whitney Houston, the single biggest waste of a phenomenal voice in pop history) and hair metal.  A lot of folks like me retreated to "college radio" where we could hear The Replacements, Violent Femmes, Superchunk, Afghan Whigs, Throwing Muses, and Sonic Youth.  In THAT context Nirvana was like a flood that lifted all boats.  Suddenly the kind of music we had been listening to was all over the radio, but better.

Yeah, it's not an age thing.  If you were a teenager Nirvana was probably to you what Cheap Trick was to me.  If you were a young adult they were a godsend that signaled the end of shit (and unfortunately soon thereafter a new era of a different kind of shit).  If you were even older, they were a flashback to how you probably felt when Queen started to explode.

I was a young adult when Nirvana came out. It's useless to argue about what bands are great. Everyone has different tastes. I always loved hard rock/metal, grew up in the MTV era where they actually played videos, and got to listen to different types of music that I never would have sought ought before. Nirvana changed the landscape. They were different, original, and I respect the hell out of them.

That being said, I thought their songs were catchy and I bought their cd's, but they just didn't do a lot for me. I liked Alice in Chains over Nirvana. Liked the heaviness, and Layne Staley's voice/lyrics were awesome. I was never a "college radio" guy so that has something to do with it. I was AC/DC-Metallica-Megadeth-Slayer-Maiden etc...so Nirvana just didn't register for me as much as some.

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

The argument about whether Nirvana is the best is all well and good. I’m still amazed at someone’s hot take that Nirvana isn’t rock.

Also: it’s wild that I’m maybe the only one that even mentioned more than one contender from the early aughts indie/garage rock resurgence. I think that’s the latest stuff that has had a chance to stand the test of time, but there’s still great rock music being made.

Rock is quietly having a moment right now. Women are getting in on it to a greater extent than before and it’s largely based around a DIY scene/ethos rather than being a commercial juggernaut, but young people are listening to rock music and making rock music for each other, getting inspired by each other just as much as by rockers of yore. Rock is not the defining sound of American culture like it once was, but it’s very much alive and healthier than it’s been in like a decade or more.

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

lol remember when that one guy said Nirvana takes a backseat to Charlie Daniels Band in the rock pantheon

Edited May 30, 2018 by Thermos H. Christ

[Anton Chigurh 3319]

The argument about whether Nirvana is the best is all well and good. I’m still amazed at someone’s hot take that Nirvana isn’t rock.

Also: it’s wild that I’m maybe the only one that even mentioned more than one contender from the early aughts indie/garage rock resurgence. I think that’s the latest stuff that has had a chance to stand the test of time, but there’s still great rock music being made.

Rock is quietly having a moment right now. Women are getting in on it to a greater extent than before and it’s largely based around a DIY scene/ethos rather than being a commercial juggernaut, but young people are listening to rock music and making rock music for each other, getting inspired by each other just as much as by rockers of yore. Rock is not the defining sound of American culture like it once was, but it’s very much alive and healthier than it’s been in like a decade or more.

 

Yep. Hopefully someday we can talk about Courtney Barnett on this list.

[irishtexan 11522]

1 hour ago, Anton Chigurh said:

 

Yep. Hopefully someday we can talk about Courtney Barnett on this list.

Courtney Barnett isn't a band. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

10 hours ago, Thermos H. Christ said:

lol remember when that one guy said Nirvana takes a backseat to Charlie Daniels Band in the rock pantheon

You have to admit, the impact of CDB on air violin is immeasurable. 

[Al_4_ISU 12473]

I was 9 when Kurt offed himself, and didn't really listen to Nirvana until the next year.  I became completely obsessed almost immediately.  Within a couple years, I had moved on, but always still counted myself as a fan.  When I got super into Pearl Jam in college, I sorta dismissed Nirvana a little in my mind and thought of them as a good band, but not as great as they'd been made out to be.

I listened to them a lot this spring, as I made a point while in the field to dig back into the music I liked between the ages of 10-21 that I don't listen to much today and see what holds up and what doesn't.

Nirvana holds the fuck up.  Nevermind is a little dated from a production stand point, but the songs are still there.  In Utero is my favorite of the 3 studio offerings.  The three main live offerings (Unplugged, Banks of the Muddy Wishkah, Reading) are still great showcases of what they could do.  Unplugged is absolutely chilling at times.  Kurt was a great songwriter with an ear for a hook and a riff - he probably doesn't get enough credit as a guitarist (and maybe too much as a lyricist).  Grohl is one of the most explosive drummers of all time, and he blew their sound out into orbit - listen to Bleach, and then listen to the rest.  Without him, Nirvana doesn't blow up the way they did.  Novoselic was the Ringo Starr of the 90's - the average dude surrounded by legendary talent who did his job fine.