Entre_Perpetuo

It's the kind of hate bands can get by members here who don't prefer them that made me title my Queen thread the way I did back when I made it so long ago. Now I realize a lot of you really have a lot against Green Day, but it seems like the OP was more looking for folks who actually like them a lot as she does, and would probably prefer to discuss them with others who like them a lot. So then wouldn't it make more sense to leave your negative comments for a "let's bash Green Day" thread, or even the RRHOF thread? I for one think Green Day are much better than Nirvana and are easily one of the best bands since the nineties. There's a video of them playing with U2 at the reopening of the football stadium of the Saints in New Orleans (forgive me, I'm not very knowledgeable in how to talk about sports) after Hurrican Katrina. They open with Wake Me Up When September Ends, which just sounds epic, then they go into House Of The Rising Son for a minute before charging to a little known song called The Saints Are Coming (which subsequently became the anthem of the football team) and ending on the most powerful rendition of Beautiful Day I've heard. The whole thing reminded me of the sheer power of the right music at the right time in the right place to connect with an audience and transcend its label as simple art. Just from the YouTube video, I could feel a fraction of the pure hope, joy, relief, and outpouring of emotion that must've taken place on that day for the city of New Orleans. If Green Day can be a part of that, if they can have that kind of effect on people, they have to be one of the great bands of all time, top 50 at least. EDIT: incorrect pronoun

I don't agree. Your approach to this is too academic. I think the important thing above all else is how someone responds emotionally to a song/album/artist. If millions do then I think that means as much if not more than merely starting something new. Anyone can dislike something and call it generic or bland, but if millions are adoring and valuing the work of an artist and their music has helped make someone feel richer in life or understood, I think that should be taken into account. Sounding like someone else is fine of your music has heart and soul. And it depends on each listener to decide for themselves if what they are listening too is worth it. It will be interesting and sad to see who the hall is electing in 25 years based on current music trends Oh I know...I think that's why I defend Green Day. Not many bands have made much impact so when they get slated I'm just like "but who else is there?". Even Foo Fighters are generic and pretty bland...but both have killer songs and albums that moved an entire generation. I was the American Idiot generation. Nothing came close to that album. A few years before there was Linkin Park, but since American Idiot? Not sure a single rock album has changed the rock scene. Even The Black Parade rode the coattails of American Idiot a bit too much... Both bands are easy to hate but the fact is they offered an entire generation a band to believe in on a large scale. You can't take away the empowerment felt by millions of fans who were listening to this type of music for the first time. Agreed. I'm just glad I have Muse to believe in, even if they will never be the majority favorite, they play and make records like they have been for decades.

Nimrod is my favorite right now!! I have it on CD and I love it a lot!! I have it on vinyl but it currently in my dorm at college (I'm home on fall break) as one of the 20 something records I decided we're worthy enough to bring along with me, if that says anything.

Love Green Day. New album is good, though with some flaws, but they're the kind of flaws I think will pretty much go away live, so I'd love to see them live. Not sure I could do a top ten, or rank my fav albums from them either. I do have a particular soft spot for Nimrod though.

Green Day had a huge influence on a newer generation of "so-called" pop-punk groups. My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Panic! at The Disco all owe a huge debt for the nineties pop-punk spearheaded by Green Day for instance, especially in the category of their popularity and their ability to find an audience. Green Day didn't really do anything new, but they did take old things and do them in a really commercial and universally relatable way which helped to creat an audience for that brand of punk which many don't even consider to be punk but exists and matters nonetheless. I wasn't discounting their influence so much as lamenting the fact that the bands that they sounded so much like were still not only active but still actively influencing other bands. Those predecessors to Green Day were ignored when Green Day rocketed to stardom. Like Bad Religion as the most obvious example. But again, I'm not slamming Green Day, the fact that they did rocket away proves they're popularity, and no doubt a lot of people turned on to the scene after that. But without adding anything new at all it seems wrong to get in so immediately when other bands that did more have to wait decades. I'm all for Green Day getting in, btw. Just odd how immediate it was, considering. I can understand that, but you also have to consider the fact that the average joe knows nothing about Bad Religion, The Descendants, or other such bands which are maybe more deserving, while he probably knows Boulevard Of Broken Dreams and Green Days other biggest hits rather well, might even be able to identify their name or Billy as the lead singer. If they put in one of those bands, the average joe would react with confusion and ignorance, but when they put in Green Day everyone essentially knows who they're talking about and what they're getting put in for. Plus, many more people would clamor for Green Day's induction and make a big fuss if they didn't get put in the year they were eligible than do for Bad Religion and such. Green Day are songwriting hacks. Blatant and obvious. There's not an original note or chord sequence in their repertoire. I like a song here or there, but that's an exception to the rule. I find their popularity and longevity baffling. Well, original or not, they are the first place many of us have heard some of those melodies and ways of playing chord sequences (many great bands didn't often have original chord sequences, so I don't understand your argument there), and they play and sing them very well in their own collective voice. They are easy for me to love, songwriting hacks or not. That's all well and fine. Appreciate Green Day all you want. It's all good. Personally, I find so much of their music insulting. Two songs nailed it for me - "Good Riddance" and "Warning" And the pandering spoon fed politics of American Idiot. Warning in particular is pretty much a rip off of a couple different songs, I have recognized that before. And Good Riddance is just so simplistic, but well written. I enjoy playing it, and people tend to enjoy hearing it. Oh well, I shall continue to enjoy them. Their new album is good. I'm not knocking you for liking them. Enjoy them and appreciate them all you want. I just find them irritating. My basic point is they are a first ballot inductee while Yes, a band that contributed to defining a genre and that sounds like no other band, is on the outside looking in. Baffling. Oh no I understood you weren't knocking me, I was just commenting on those two songs. I definitely do agree Yes should've been in there long ahead of Green Day.

Love every selection minus "Down And Out." Once Hackett left Genesis was just a Phil Collins Pop Rock Machine. "Calling All Stations" is such an underrated gem. Blows all of those Phil Years albums way. Ray Wilson is great. "Shipwrecked" I've never once heard anyone call Calling All Stations good. Lol, maybe I'll actually have to check it out.

Green Day had a huge influence on a newer generation of "so-called" pop-punk groups. My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Panic! at The Disco all owe a huge debt for the nineties pop-punk spearheaded by Green Day for instance, especially in the category of their popularity and their ability to find an audience. Green Day didn't really do anything new, but they did take old things and do them in a really commercial and universally relatable way which helped to creat an audience for that brand of punk which many don't even consider to be punk but exists and matters nonetheless. I wasn't discounting their influence so much as lamenting the fact that the bands that they sounded so much like were still not only active but still actively influencing other bands. Those predecessors to Green Day were ignored when Green Day rocketed to stardom. Like Bad Religion as the most obvious example. But again, I'm not slamming Green Day, the fact that they did rocket away proves they're popularity, and no doubt a lot of people turned on to the scene after that. But without adding anything new at all it seems wrong to get in so immediately when other bands that did more have to wait decades. I'm all for Green Day getting in, btw. Just odd how immediate it was, considering. I can understand that, but you also have to consider the fact that the average joe knows nothing about Bad Religion, The Descendants, or other such bands which are maybe more deserving, while he probably knows Boulevard Of Broken Dreams and Green Days other biggest hits rather well, might even be able to identify their name or Billy as the lead singer. If they put in one of those bands, the average joe would react with confusion and ignorance, but when they put in Green Day everyone essentially knows who they're talking about and what they're getting put in for. Plus, many more people would clamor for Green Day's induction and make a big fuss if they didn't get put in the year they were eligible than do for Bad Religion and such. Green Day are songwriting hacks. Blatant and obvious. There's not an original note or chord sequence in their repertoire. I like a song here or there, but that's an exception to the rule. I find their popularity and longevity baffling. Well, original or not, they are the first place many of us have heard some of those melodies and ways of playing chord sequences (many great bands didn't often have original chord sequences, so I don't understand your argument there), and they play and sing them very well in their own collective voice. They are easy for me to love, songwriting hacks or not. That's all well and fine. Appreciate Green Day all you want. It's all good. Personally, I find so much of their music insulting. Two songs nailed it for me - "Good Riddance" and "Warning" And the pandering spoon fed politics of American Idiot. Warning in particular is pretty much a rip off of a couple different songs, I have recognized that before. And Good Riddance is just so simplistic, but well written. I enjoy playing it, and people tend to enjoy hearing it. Oh well, I shall continue to enjoy them. Their new album is good.

Scored big time at the record store today, but the crown jewel: Sgt. Pepper's (seemingly) original US print with original cardboard cutouts (and sadly no loop at the end) in stereo (which I happen to like) in excellent condidtion (especially the vinyl itself) for... (Drumroll please) ten bucks. Ten. Bucks. Possibly the best deal I've ever gotten.

Geddy John Deacon Chris Wolstenholme Mike Rutherford Paul McCartney

I say they should put Sweet in the hall of fame. Sweet is awesome.

Green Day had a huge influence on a newer generation of "so-called" pop-punk groups. My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Panic! at The Disco all owe a huge debt for the nineties pop-punk spearheaded by Green Day for instance, especially in the category of their popularity and their ability to find an audience. Green Day didn't really do anything new, but they did take old things and do them in a really commercial and universally relatable way which helped to creat an audience for that brand of punk which many don't even consider to be punk but exists and matters nonetheless. I wasn't discounting their influence so much as lamenting the fact that the bands that they sounded so much like were still not only active but still actively influencing other bands. Those predecessors to Green Day were ignored when Green Day rocketed to stardom. Like Bad Religion as the most obvious example. But again, I'm not slamming Green Day, the fact that they did rocket away proves they're popularity, and no doubt a lot of people turned on to the scene after that. But without adding anything new at all it seems wrong to get in so immediately when other bands that did more have to wait decades. I'm all for Green Day getting in, btw. Just odd how immediate it was, considering. I can understand that, but you also have to consider the fact that the average joe knows nothing about Bad Religion, The Descendants, or other such bands which are maybe more deserving, while he probably knows Boulevard Of Broken Dreams and Green Days other biggest hits rather well, might even be able to identify their name or Billy as the lead singer. If they put in one of those bands, the average joe would react with confusion and ignorance, but when they put in Green Day everyone essentially knows who they're talking about and what they're getting put in for. Plus, many more people would clamor for Green Day's induction and make a big fuss if they didn't get put in the year they were eligible than do for Bad Religion and such. Green Day are songwriting hacks. Blatant and obvious. There's not an original note or chord sequence in their repertoire. I like a song here or there, but that's an exception to the rule. I find their popularity and longevity baffling. Well, original or not, they are the first place many of us have heard some of those melodies and ways of playing chord sequences (many great bands didn't often have original chord sequences, so I don't understand your argument there), and they play and sing them very well in their own collective voice. They are easy for me to love, songwriting hacks or not.

Green Day had a huge influence on a newer generation of "so-called" pop-punk groups. My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Panic! at The Disco all owe a huge debt for the nineties pop-punk spearheaded by Green Day for instance, especially in the category of their popularity and their ability to find an audience. Green Day didn't really do anything new, but they did take old things and do them in a really commercial and universally relatable way which helped to creat an audience for that brand of punk which many don't even consider to be punk but exists and matters nonetheless. I wasn't discounting their influence so much as lamenting the fact that the bands that they sounded so much like were still not only active but still actively influencing other bands. Those predecessors to Green Day were ignored when Green Day rocketed to stardom. Like Bad Religion as the most obvious example. But again, I'm not slamming Green Day, the fact that they did rocket away proves they're popularity, and no doubt a lot of people turned on to the scene after that. But without adding anything new at all it seems wrong to get in so immediately when other bands that did more have to wait decades. I'm all for Green Day getting in, btw. Just odd how immediate it was, considering. I can understand that, but you also have to consider the fact that the average joe knows nothing about Bad Religion, The Descendants, or other such bands which are maybe more deserving, while he probably knows Boulevard Of Broken Dreams and Green Days other biggest hits rather well, might even be able to identify their name or Billy as the lead singer. If they put in one of those bands, the average joe would react with confusion and ignorance, but when they put in Green Day everyone essentially knows who they're talking about and what they're getting put in for. Plus, many more people would clamor for Green Day's induction and make a big fuss if they didn't get put in the year they were eligible than do for Bad Religion and such.

Lol.

Green Day had a huge influence on a newer generation of "so-called" pop-punk groups. My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Panic! at The Disco all owe a huge debt for the nineties pop-punk spearheaded by Green Day for instance, especially in the category of their popularity and their ability to find an audience. Green Day didn't really do anything new, but they did take old things and do them in a really commercial and universally relatable way which helped to creat an audience for that brand of punk which many don't even consider to be punk but exists and matters nonetheless.

So I recently purchased Darkness On The Edge Of Town on iTunes, and I've found I really really love it a lot. It took a good while to sink in, but his guitar work is incredible, the songs are deep and connecting and memorable, the production is perfect, and the rock and roll edge is still there. Just a slight lack of sax in places (like I feel like the moaning at the beginning and end of Something In The Night was originally meant to be Clarence's sax, and maybe would've worked better as such, or maybe as both it would be really cool). I'd say it really vies for my favorite now with Born To Run (which I'd argue has more filler but higher highs, whereas Darkness is practically free of filler but is also consistent at a level slightly below that of Jungleland for instance). TWTIATESS is also a great album, but it just doesn't run as deep as those two for me, though it has much more fun. I've also just picked up Born 2 for five bucks on vinyl today as I've come to realize over the past few months that I'm not as annoyed and hateful towards the really repetitive hits from it as I used to be, now knowing Bruce a bit better, plus there are a lot of songs on it I've yet to hear until right now (almost halfway through atm). So far I'm thinking I'm not as fond of it as Darkness and Born 1, but it does seem like a great album to just throw on in the car and jam out to while rolling down the road.

Physical Graffiti comes to mind. Innuendo needs most every track. Made In Heaven could go either way. I'd actually argue for The Astonishing since the story is told pretty sequentially over all the tracks...but I haven't heard the second disc yet lol. I actually love what I've heard of it, but I totally understand the hate.

Honestly a better question would be what double album wouldn't have been better as a single... I think I'll make a thread for that...

All of the long tracks are brilliant, after that give me No Son Of Mine, I Can't Dance, Jesus He Knows Me, and whichever ballad you prefer. Would make a great single album.

I still stand by the idea that the "rock and roll" hall of fame should be reserved for rock artists or those who are instrinsically connected to rock music. If they want a place for other genres, each genre should have it's own place, or better yet, they should just stop calling the whole thing the rock and roll hall of fame and change it to the popular music hall of fame with section for each genre. My list from their nominees: YES (should've been in years ago, and last year especially after Chris passed away) Electric Light Orchestra The Cars Pearl Jam (This last one could be between a few, but because of the Woodstock connection...) Joan Baez I also argue Kraftwerk, Tupac, and Janet Jackson don't belong in a "rock and roll" heart of fame, regardless of how good and influential and long lasting they've been. You could actually make a case for Joan Baez being too folk to be in, and I can see that, but for me any rock and roll history must include an account of Woodstock, and Joan undeniably played a big role at the start of Woodstock, which was mostly folk anyway.

REO, Styx, Journey, and Foreigner are the four bands I still consider to be the commercial rulers and defines of AOR. Boston created the genre in 76 (and defined it), Toto did a lot with it but were a very different kind of band from the four above, and Kansas were pretty much already fading by 1980, peaked too early and were too progressively inclined during that peak. So REO is very well known. Great sound, great songs, great band.

Today I scored big time. A great day to get some true essentials of classic rock for real cheap! All on vinyl. Sweet - Desolation Boulevard Aerosmith - Live! Bootleg Heart - Dreamboat Annie Bruce Springsteen - Born In The U.S.A. (And now the biggies) Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed ($12, great condition) The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band ($10!! Practically perfect condition for the vinyl, sleeve has some wear but not much, original cardboard cutouts included, no indication of it being a reissue that I can tell. Printed in the USA, stereo, no loop thing at the end though...) Passed up a few other goodies for all of these gems.

I do one every couple of weeks now. I was going to hit them next! Lol, whoops. I just came back for a week, but I'll let you handle them from here. It seems Earl would love to see one for Marillion though.

Figured the other super big english symphonic prog band should have a thread for this idea as well. Top ten Genesis songs (split eras if you must...I might have to), and go! In this order on first thought. --Supper's Ready --Get 'Em Out By Friday --Watcher Of The Skies --Dancing With The Moonlit Knight --Behind The Lines --Firth Of Fifth --Land Of Confusion --Turn It On Again --Mama --The Musical Box

CA is I believe the only post MP track in my Rush top ten, almost specifically for the feeling I get when the guitar hits. It just soars! This giant wall/wave of sound washes over you, and then the drums kick in and everything is Heavenly. Perfect song.

Prog rock doesn't really become prog rock until King Crimson as I've often heard and read, though plenty of hints and inclinations existed leading up to that legendary year of 69 (the Moodies and the Beatles just to name a couple). Rock itself obviously is much older than the majority of rock discussed in these parts, but as for the classic rock we know today, that still goes to the usual suspects: Beatles, Stones, etc. from the first wave of the British invasion, or Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc. if you want to reach back to the ideal that inspired that Brits. Personally I'd say the Stones were the first very notable band to perfectly exemplify the "classic rock" sound, and then I tend to give it to Aerosmith for nailing that sound perfectly and becoming the middle ground for all other rock. Punk had roots in the Stooges and various other early seventies acts in that vein, but punk really became punk with the Ramones. To this day, the formula for punk at it's core is pretty much still what the Ramones set in stone. pop as we know it is definitively The Beatles. This one I am most definite on. They changed everything, from the music itself, to the way it was made, to the way it was presented, to the way it was perceived, to the way its makers were perceived, to the way musicians and bands in general were perceived. Pop music always comes back to the Beatles in the end. Metal is Sabbath as I'm told. There were of course the classic progenitors, but Sabbath made it real. Hard rock probably goes to Zep in the end, with very important contributions from Cream, the Stones, The Who, the Kinks, and a number of others who just made it possible for a band like Zep to come along and define hard rock. Psychedelic I believe goes to the 13th Floor Elevators and the early psychedelic movement in Austin, Texas, which gained momentum and moved to Cali where all things can break into mainstream. I'm not certain on the whole story of it though. Nirvana popularized grunge, but I still don't believe it's a real thing as much as a label put on all the Seattle bands who were making somewhat depressing hard rock music in an alternative vein with metal and/or punk influences. The existence of the genre as a genre and not a movement is because of Nevermind, but they were only a part of the movement in general. that's all my opinions for now.