HAHA! My daughter has pilfered the best of mine. Funny thing, those K-Tels are still in the crate--can't imagine whyMy vinyl records only serve one purpose anymore... they hang on the wall.
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
HAHA! My daughter has pilfered the best of mine. Funny thing, those K-Tels are still in the crate--can't imagine whyMy vinyl records only serve one purpose anymore... they hang on the wall.
I think Radiohead has a high likelihood of being chosen by a lot of people. Nirvana and Queens are too early, as is Prince (he was my first choice, but I had to reconsider, given the parameters--lol). And the situation like the Velvet Underground is exactly what the prof wants, I think. Someone under the radar now, but who is building the framework for new music nonetheless.
Still regurgitation to me, but I get what you're going at.
BTW, have you encountered modern vinyl? Absolute CRAP. Flawed as hell, and overpriced when single albums are all stretched to double. Plus, unless they're recorded analog, you might just as well spend a quarter to half as much on a CD. It's all digital and sounds the same. *Shakes fist at the sky, adjusts truss, and walkers back into Fogey's Rest Home* : D
Totally agree. Vinyl is just a fad, nostalgia or status type of thing, IMO. If you care about the music, the quality of modern media puts vinyl (past and present) to shame.
The Joshua Tree released in 1987 versus 1988 is kinda picky. And many argue Achtung Baby released in 1991 was their best work.U2 is out because their first album was released in 1980 and their best material (War and The Joshua Tree) was released before 1988.
The Joshua Tree released in 1987 versus 1988 is kinda picky. And many argue Achtung Baby released in 1991 was their best work.
(The Joshua Tree is their best... IMO)
Dave Grohl is WAY into analog, so I don't doubt it. Love the FoosI have no issues with the vinyl I have been buying recently. As long as its pressed on high quality material it sounds fine. Not everyone is recording on digital. Foo Fighters for example did the entire Wasting Light album on tape.
New vinyl is overpriced though.
Or Cobain's version of the Melvins. Pixies are more punk than Nirvana ever was.Tricky assignment you have there considering it's limited to artists that have only released new material from 1988 forward.
That said, you could argue Nirvana or Pearl Jam in the rock genre since Nirvana's first album was released in 1989 and Pearl Jam's was 1991. Both bands ushered out the "hair metal" era and kicked off the "grunge / alternative" phase of rock. Although, at it's core, Nirvana was just Curt Cobain's version of The Pixies.
U2 is out because their first album was released in 1980 and their best material (War and The Joshua Tree) was released before 1988.
Guns and Roses just misses the mark as their debut was in 1987.
You could argue Foo Fighters. They are more diverse than Nirvana and the musicianship is better.
If rap / hip-hop is in play you could argue Dr. Dre (as a producer). Although, I think N.W.A. started in 1986. Same with Ice T, Run DMC, and Grand Master Flash. They all started before 1988.
So, with all of that said my pick would be Nirvana if you are strictly speaking about rock music. I'd be tempted to go with SoundGarden only because I like them better than Nirvana. But, Nirvana was the first of the Seattle based bands to break out so they get all the glory.
I loathe Achtung Baby and Pop, but I do admire U2 for not endlessly rehashing their earlier stuff. I don't like every album by any of my favorite artists, because I tend to admire those with the guts to change.The Joshua Tree released in 1987 versus 1988 is kinda picky. And many argue Achtung Baby released in 1991 was their best work.
(The Joshua Tree is their best... IMO)
Wow! Quite a complement of people singing Rush's praises! Okay. Maybe I can get past Geddy Lee's voice and the VERY limited songs played on radio and give them a chance. The only song I've ever heard by them and liked even a little is Working Man, but I haven't heard many.Well, you know who I'm going to nominate. Rush has been creating new music right up until 2012, with Clockwork Angels. Man musicians who are, themselves considered influential, cite Rush as an early influence. But don't take my word for it...
The sound sucks, I know.
Wow! Quite a complement of people singing Rush's praises! Okay. Maybe I can get past Geddy Lee's voice and the VERY limited songs played on radio and give them a chance. The only song I've ever heard by them and liked even a little is Working Man, but I haven't heard many.
My first choice, and I'm still considering him. I've worked up the bare bones of a few artists, and I'm seeing what kind of proof I can come up with for each.View attachment 26355
He played most* of the instruments in his songs. He wrote most* of his songs. He produced most* of his songs. He arranged most* of his songs. He recorded most* of his songs in the studio. Etc. Etc. Etc.
*99%
I forgot to add that new 'artists' owe him a HUGE debt of gratitude for taking on the record industry and changing how those CONtracts by record companies are worded/offered to them. Now most newbies own their master recordings instead of the labels, get to choose how those properties are used and can profit from them instead of the record companies banking the profits. Prince didn't just haphazardly use the term 'revolution' in a band name for nothing. He also was very female empowering in his lyrics. Women were often portrayed as the more powerful force in the relationships than the man. He respected women. He was also the only man that could wear makeup, lace and high heels and steal your woman!My first choice, and I'm still considering him. I've worked up the bare bones of a few artists, and I'm seeing what kind of proof I can come up with for each.