Most influential musician/group in the last 30 years

[skimom2]

By the end of the term, I have to write a paper abut who I think is the most influential musician/group of the last 30 years--who will be remembered 50 years from now. It's sparked quite a few interesting dinner table discussions at mi casa! So, since I know many of us are music lovers, I 'm throwing it out to my second family to chew over: WHo do YOU think is the most influential musician/group in the last 3 decades? Not asking you to do my work (lol)-- I've pretty much made up my mind who I'm going to write about. It's just been a fun topic to discuss!

EDIT: They have to have released new music in the last 30 years--that one got me. I kept thinking of people I find influential that haven't released much new music in the time frame.

 

[Spideyman]

By the end of the term, I have to write a paper abut who I think is the most influential musician/group of the last 30 years--who will be remembered 50 years from now. It's sparked quite a few interesting dinner table discussions at mi casa! So, since I know many of us are music lovers, I 'm throwing it out to my second family to chew over: WHo do YOU think is the most influential musician/group in the last 3 decades? Not asking you to do my work (lol)-- I've pretty much made up my mind who I'm going to write about. It's just been a fun topic to discuss!

EDIT: They have to have released new music in the last 30 years--that one got me. I kept thinking of people I find influential that haven't released much new music in the time frame.

There may be others, but Paul Simon has had and still has a great influence on music.

 

[skimom2]

There may be others, but Paul Simon has had and still has a great influence on music.

I didn't now that he and Art Garfunkel had little to do with the release of Sound of Silence! The studio prettied up an old recording and released it without saying anything to Simon or Garfunkel. Paul Simon was in Europe and had to rush home when it became a hit, and Garfunkel was in grad school.

I would agree for the earlier decades, but I'm not so sure in the last 30 years.

 

[fljoe0]

It's a tricky question because sometimes the bands considered most influential later on might not even be well known now. The Velvet Underground were barely heard in the 60s but are at the top of most lists like that now.

As far as the last 30 years, I think Radiohead have been very innovative and I can see them being considered influential years from now. Prince, of course but I'm not sure his most influential material fits in the time frame. Jack White and Kanye West might make a list like that too. Nirvana & Queens of the Stone Age would make my list.

 

[Dana Jean]

By the end of the term, I have to write a paper abut who I think is the most influential musician/group of the last 30 years--who will be remembered 50 years from now. It's sparked quite a few interesting dinner table discussions at mi casa! So, since I know many of us are music lovers, I 'm throwing it out to my second family to chew over: WHo do YOU think is the most influential musician/group in the last 3 decades? Not asking you to do my work (lol)-- I've pretty much made up my mind who I'm going to write about. It's just been a fun topic to discuss!

EDIT: They have to have released new music in the last 30 years--that one got me. I kept thinking of people I find influential that haven't released much new music in the time frame.

Enya.

 

[Dana Jean]

 

[Spideyman]

I didn't now that he and Art Garfunkel had little to do with the release of Sound of Silence! The studio prettied up an old recording and released it without saying anything to Simon or Garfunkel. Paul Simon was in Europe and had to rush home when it became a hit, and Garfunkel was in grad school.

I would agree for the earlier decades, but I'm not so sure in the last 30 years.

Was thinking along the lines of his use of musical instrumentation, style. Several innovative styles since 1988. Also thinking more of his solo albums these past few years. The Broadway show was a flop, but he tried.

 

[Dana Jean]

Oooo, that's a tough one but I would have to say it would have to be a black artist or group.

The influence of Black culture/counter culture has totally changed and shaped our music as we know it as it has moved through time.

But who to single out, artist or group, is a tough one.

 

[skimom2]

It's a tricky question because sometimes the bands considered most influential later on might not even be well known now. The Velvet Underground were barely heard in the 60s but are at the top of most lists like that now.

As far as the last 30 years, I think Radiohead have been very innovative and I can see them being considered influential years from now. Prince, of course but I'm not sure his most influential material fits in the time frame. Jack White and Kanye West might make a list like that too. Nirvana & Queens of the Stone Age would make my list.

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.

 

[Dana Jean]

By the end of the term, I have to write a paper abut who I think is the most influential musician/group of the last 30 years--who will be remembered 50 years from now. It's sparked quite a few interesting dinner table discussions at mi casa! So, since I know many of us are music lovers, I 'm throwing it out to my second family to chew over: WHo do YOU think is the most influential musician/group in the last 3 decades? Not asking you to do my work (lol)-- I've pretty much made up my mind who I'm going to write about. It's just been a fun topic to discuss!

EDIT: They have to have released new music in the last 30 years--that one got me. I kept thinking of people I find influential that haven't released much new music in the time frame.

okay, are we talking they have to be the front person/group still playing today? Or, can it be someone who was active when they were young but now may be taking a back seat in the studio as producer, song writer etc... still getting their hands dirty but not the "face" of performing them.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

I’d say U2, Madonna and Lady Gaga would probably top the list.

But some very influential group’s live performances have kept them on the top of the list of influence, even though most of their best material came before 1988. These would include The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Roger Waters (Pink Floyd), Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, AC/DC, Bon Jovi, Queen, David Bowie, and a few others. And they all released music after 1988 (I believe) even though the later work didn't get the acclaim of their prior projects...But is that just a technicality?

 

[skimom2]

okay, are we talking they have to be the front person/group still playing today? Or, can it be someone who was active when they were young but now may be taking a back seat in the studio as producer, song writer etc... still getting their hands dirty but not the "face" of performing them.

Good question! I think that as long as they have released new music in the last 30 years, producing/writing most recently would be fine. I'm going to look up the wording of the actual assignment to be sure.

By that measure, Kenneth 'Babyface' Edmonds would be right on the top of the list. I hadn't considered him, but HMMMMM...

 

[skimom2]

I’d say U2, Madonna and Lady Gaga would probably top the list.

But some very influential group’s live performances have kept them on the top of the list of influence, even though most of their best material came before 1988. These would include The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Roger Waters (Pink Floyd), Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, AC/DC, Bon Jovi, Queen, David Bowie, and a few others. And they all released music after 1988 (I believe) even though the later work didn't get the acclaim of their prior projects...But is that just a technicality?

I don't think so. "Our" musicans are still around, but most of them have nostalgia value only. They aren't innovating, just regurgitating.

 

[skimom2]

The actual assignment, from the professor's Canvas listing:

"A 4-5 page, college level paper. Regularly, when teaching this class, students express frustration at the later chapters of the text. Unfortunately, without the lens of history, it can be difficult to determine what musicians or bands will truly stand the test of time in the same way that the Beatles or Elvis has (for example). This is your chance to correct the authors of the book. Reflect on all you've learned about rock history and what characteristics might make a musician or band worthy of inclusion in this text, and then answer the following question: What musician or band from the last 30 years do you believe will still be important and influential 50 years from now? Your paper should place your choice in a much larger social, cultural, and historical context in order to effectively make your argument. Please limit your choices to groups that have released new music in the last 30 years - I don't want papers about the Doors, for example (who are arguably short-changed by the textbook). Your paper should be written as though you were writing to an expert in the field of Rock History - your textbook authors, for example."

 

[Dana Jean]

The actual assignment, from the professor's Canvas listing:

"A 4-5 page, college level paper. Regularly, when teaching this class, students express frustration at the later chapters of the text. Unfortunately, without the lens of history, it can be difficult to determine what musicians or bands will truly stand the test of time in the same way that the Beatles or Elvis has (for example). This is your chance to correct the authors of the book. Reflect on all you've learned about rock history and what characteristics might make a musician or band worthy of inclusion in this text, and then answer the following question: What musician or band from the last 30 years do you believe will still be important and influential 50 years from now? Your paper should place your choice in a much larger social, cultural, and historical context in order to effectively make your argument. Please limit your choices to groups that have released new music in the last 30 years - I don't want papers about the Doors, for example (who are arguably short-changed by the textbook). Your paper should be written as though you were writing to an expert in the field of Rock History - your textbook authors, for example."

After I read this, I stand by my suggestion.

Be sure and let us know who you pick, why and how you do!

 

[DiO'Bolic]

I don't think so. "Our" musicans are still around, but most of them have nostalgia value only. They aren't innovating, just regurgitating.

I'd argue their live performances draw in new generations of fans.

Look at some of the toy selling VINYL record albums of recent years. They include the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson, Fleetwood Mac, David Bowie, etc. It’s not us dinosaurs buying vinyl, it’s the hipster generation.

(And I forgot to add Michael Jackson to my original list.)

And no one would argue the Bible, or Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Twain were just nostalgia and didn’t continue to influence today and will continue 50 years from now.

Neil Young, Van Morrison, Bob Dylan and Gordon Lightfoot might be good subjects. Reasoning... music and poetry.

 

[skimom2]

After I read this, I stand by my suggestion.

Be sure and let us know who you pick, why and how you do!

I will! I do have some ideas on paper, but I didn't want to influence anyone. It's interesting to me to see what other people think on a NON horribly divisive topic. I have news burnout.

GNTLGNT , hossenpepper , anyone else--thoughts?

 

[skimom2]

I'd argue their live performances draw in new generations of fans.

Look at some of the toy selling VINYL record albums of recent years. They include the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson, Fleetwood Mac, David Bowie, etc. It’s not us dinosaurs buying vinyl, it’s the hipster generation.

(And I forgot to add Michael Jackson to my original list.)

And no one would argue the Bible, or Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Twain were just nostalgia and didn’t continue to influence today and will continue 50 years from now.

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

 

[DiO'Bolic]

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.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

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.

My vinyl records only serve one purpose anymore... they hang on the wall.