[MoonPI]

snail33, on 14 March 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

i didn't miss any point and i am not even a zep fan per se. but the other bands you named can't hold led zeppelin's balls. and lz did move past their original roots to make much more complex records like physical graffiti and presence. as far as ac/dc, they are a really great, fun, STUPID FUCKING rock band. which is cool. they're still a fuck of a lot better than all the other bands you named, but not good enough for me to defend vociferously. ac/dc=enjoyably lowbrow, nickelback=insufferably lowbrow.

the rock music made between the beginning of the rock era and the early 90s is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than what has come since. the end.

Is Nickelback a rock band?? I would not consider them one, more like a pop band...anyway...AC/DC ROCKS!! :)/> I would agree the music made between the beginning or rock era and the 90's blows away more recent music..having watched documentary's like evolution of rock and evolution of metal, they pretty much stop at the 90's..don't really touch on much of the bands of today...

[dudehitscar]

AC/DC is only good when you are piss drunk with people you don't want to have any kind of real conversation with..

[V_____]

Why does everyone always bring up Nickelback as an example of rock today? They're one band and they don't accurately represent anything close to the rock scene of the present. They're early 2000s buttrock and started out in 1996. How are they in any way representative of the rock scene of today?

You know who's on the top of the Bilboard rock chart right now? The Black Keys. They're far far more indicative of the direction rock has been headed. The scene of today (that is the guys who aren't still bands from the 90s) is largely made up of people with an indie rock aesthetic.

[lucciola]

Some nice observations from Billy. Some terribly flawed. He's not the most trustworthy or righteous of commentators, unfortunately. Turning his nose up at the game as he sits there playing it.

So much concern over what the customer wants and the best way to reach him. I don't hear an artist anymore. I hear a disgruntled businessman.

[RottingApples]

lucciola, on 15 March 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

I don't hear an artist anymore. I hear a disgruntled businessman.

Yes.

[MoonPI]

dudehitscar, on 15 March 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

AC/DC is only good when you are piss drunk with people you don't want to have any kind of real conversation with..

Oh AC/DC are good even when your aren't drunk...they are what they are and do it well..sort of like KISS...but yes they have no real depth or art to them, just some rock!! and that is good to if it is done well...

V_____, on 15 March 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Why does everyone always bring up Nickelback as an example of rock today? They're one band and they don't accurately represent anything close to the rock scene of the present. They're early 2000s buttrock and started out in 1996. How are they in any way representative of the rock scene of today?

You know who's on the top of the Bilboard rock chart right now? The Black Keys. They're far far more indicative of the direction rock has been headed. The scene of today (that is the guys who aren't still bands from the 90s) is largely made up of people with an indie rock aesthetic.

I think the Black Keys are a good example of someone being different...this is what has led them to success...they are a great soul and blues infused band...something that seems to be making a resurgence...Jack Whites new solo stuff is the same way, very good and makes me hopeful on the direction that music may be heading...



another band I think is unique is Foster the People

this song is about the most groovin song I have heard in a long time




and one of my new favs...( though no band will EVER replace the Pumpkins as being my no. 1 all time fave in my eyes)

[Arachnea]

Quote

lucciola, on 15 March 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

Some nice observations from Billy. Some terribly flawed. He's not the most trustworthy or righteous of commentators, unfortunately. Turning his nose up at the game as he sits there playing it.

So much concern over what the customer wants and the best way to reach him. I don't hear an artist anymore. I hear a disgruntled businessman.

RottingApples, on 15 March 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

Yes.

Having had some time to collect and evaluate a number of reviews of Billy's claims and behavior over his time at SXSW, a lot of things point to him being more concerned about marketing and gaining more attention for himself than genuine interest in his music and being an artist. I expected better from him. That is not to say that he did not bring up any valid points, he did, yet I think he is out of touch on a lot of things, particularly from a cultural perspective. I also think it is unfair how he continuously refuses to give contemporary bands their dues (like the Arcade Fire). Furthermore, it will take another decade before we can properly evaluate some of the influences of the day. Joy Division is a band that only received their big dues in the past decade. Bands like Joy Division also go against Billy's argument for the importance of fame and mainstream success as a barometer for art and influence. His point about grandparents not knowing who the bands are right now was also nonsensical. I doubt many grandparents knew, or even know now, who SP was either. It does make him sound like a disgruntled old rocker who is trying to cling to his throne. The singles versus album points he brought up were also contradictory. He spent about two years telling us that the album is dead (though we begged to differ) and kept telling us that singles were the future, and now he is telling us that he is all about the album experience and being an artist. Billy wanting to be on American Idol is just icing.

[RottingApples]

Arachnea, on 15 March 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I also think it is unfair how he continuously refuses to give contemporary bands their dues (like the Arcade Fire).

While I was glad he didn't just shit on them all together, it was disappointing that he essentially wrote them off as just being "a fun band". If Corgan sat down and listened to Funeral or The Suburbs, he'd probably find a lot of himself in those records. "Rococco" is the same subject as "Cherub Rock" (even more telling, because Arcade Fire are supposed to be the indie rock darlings, yet even they are telling the indie kids/ critics to go fuck themselves). They are the closest thing to a modern Rolling Stones or Beatles, and if that's not good enough for him or for anyone else, then I'm sorry he/you are missing out.

Someone really ought to play "Black Mirror" for him. Let's hear him call them a "fun band" after that. ;)/>

This post has been edited by RottingApples: 15 March 2012 - 02:40 PM

[Arachnea]

RottingApples, on 15 March 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

While I was glad he didn't just shit on them all together, it was disappointing that he essentially wrote them off as just being "a fun band". If Corgan sat down and listened to Funeral or The Suburbs, he'd probably find a lot of himself in those records. "Rococco" is the same subject as "Cherub Rock" (even more telling, because Arcade Fire are supposed to be the indie rock darlings, yet even they are telling the indie kids/ critics to go fuck themselves). They are the closest thing to a modern Rolling Stones or Beatles, and if that's not good enough for him or for anyone else, then I'm sorry he/you are missing out.

Someone really ought to play "Black Mirror" for him. Let's hear him call them a "fun band" after that. ;)/>

I agree. I only recently was introduced to the rest of their catalog by a friend and I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of their work, both from a musical and conceptual standpoint. How he can listen to the Funeral album and call them a "fun" band is unbelievable. I would have thought that Billy would appreciate a band like the Arcade Fire, given his comments on art and the importance of the journey (as an artist and as an album experience). The Arcade Fire has also created some very interesting visuals and social media to go along with their work. They are exactly what Billy has been asking for and yet he refuses to acknowledge their worth and importance to the musical landscape.

[dudehitscar]

Been an arcade fire fan since 2003. The songwriting is fantastic.

[lucciola]

Agree with everything said here in regards to Arcade Fire. They will be remembered, and remembered well. Billy has a bad case of sour grapes on this one.

Quote

If Corgan sat down and listened to Funeral or The Suburbs, he'd probably find a lot of himself in those records.

Absolutely. I said thie same to a beleaguered fellow SP fan not too long ago. I've had several moments where I'd like nothing better than to strap him down and force him to listen long and hard to Ready to Start.

Poor bastard is so overthinking things. Can't get out of his own way.

[astralweeks]

I thought he paid Arcade Fire a great compliment.. he basically said they should be the Talking Heads of this generation.. ie the niche, critics darling that eventually blew up to be one of the biggest bands of the decade because their music was great and accessible..

he just thinks the mechanisms aren't in place to enable that transition to occur..

Arcade Fire had a number one album, sold out arenas, won a grammy for album of the year, so I think it's happening. Without MTV and top 40 radio as a source their music doesn't have the same ubiquity as Nirvana, or the Pumpkins, REM etc did in their prime and I guess that's how he's gauging success in those comments

[lucciola]

astralweeks, on 15 March 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

I thought he paid Arcade Fire a great compliment.. he basically said they should be the Talking Heads of this generation.. ie the niche, critics darling that eventually blew up to be one of the biggest bands of the decade because their music was great and accessible..

he just thinks the mechanisms aren't in place to enable that transition to occur..

Arcade Fire had a number one album, sold out arenas, won a grammy for album of the year, so I think it's happening. Without MTV and top 40 radio as a source their music doesn't have the same ubiquity as Nirvana, or the Pumpkins, REM etc did in their prime and I guess that's how he's gauging success in those comments

He was much more complimentary of Arcade Fire than he has been in that past, yes.

"that's how he's gauging success in those comments"

That's the issue, isn't it? I don't gauge a band's worth by their ability to attract crossover mainstream attention. I suspect you don't either. Billy's continuing obsession with it is unnerving.

[Arachnea]

lucciola, on 15 March 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

He was much more complimentary of Arcade Fire than he has been in that past, yes.

"that's how he's gauging success in those comments"

That's the issue, isn't it? I don't gauge a band's worth by their ability to attract crossover mainstream attention. I suspect you don't either. Billy's continuing obsession with it is unnerving.

Exactly. That is what I have a problem with. By placing them in a niche he is still trying to negate their importance in the canon of modern rock music using his criteria. It is the way he gauges success that I take issue with.

[themadcaplaughs]

I know this sounds nitpicky and I am honestly surprised to hear myself saying this, but I wish he would less profanity in these types of interviews. He brought up some very valid points, but I feel his pissy attitude and cussing make him look less than stellar when this really could have been a chance for him to shine.

[RottingApples]

Arachnea, on 15 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

I agree. I only recently was introduced to the rest of their catalog by a friend and I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of their work, both from a musical and conceptual standpoint. How he can listen to the Funeral album and call them a "fun" band is unbelievable. I would have thought that Billy would appreciate a band like the Arcade Fire, given his comments on art and the importance of the journey (as an artist and as an album experience). The Arcade Fire has also created some very interesting visuals and social media to go along with their work. They are exactly what Billy has been asking for and yet he refuses to acknowledge their worth and importance to the musical landscape.

I couldn't agree with you more.

dudehitscar, on 15 March 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Been an arcade fire fan since 2003. The songwriting is fantastic.

I'm eternally jealous. I'd heard of them for the longest time, but never bothered to check them out because all the indie/ hipster kids raved about them. I finally swallowed my pride a year ago and gave them a listen. I hadn't felt what I felt at that moment since I first gave the Pumpkins a chance back in 2003. The only difference was they don't have nearly as vast a back catalogue as Corgan.

lucciola, on 15 March 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Agree with everything said here in regards to Arcade Fire. They will be remembered, and remembered well. Billy has a bad case of sour grapes on this one.
Absolutely. I said thie same to a beleaguered fellow SP fan not too long ago. I've had several moments where I'd like nothing better than to strap him down and force him to listen long and hard to Ready to Start.
Poor bastard is so overthinking things. Can't get out of his own way.

:cheers:/> As always, Lucci.

[astralweeks]

lucciola, on 15 March 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

He was much more complimentary of Arcade Fire than he has been in that past, yes.

"that's how he's gauging success in those comments"

That's the issue, isn't it? I don't gauge a band's worth by their ability to attract crossover mainstream attention. I suspect you don't either. Billy's continuing obsession with it is unnerving.

I certinaly don't agree with his take on modern music. But after listening to his comments in context as opposed to reading the sensational story headline (as I had been doing the past couple days out of laziness), I'm a little more sympathetic to the point he was trying to make..

I think he just picked a bad example with Arcade Fire. they've transceded the whole "pitchfork" thing he talked about in in his comments.. they're not "U2 big", but they're a legitimatley huge band in their own right at this point.. I don't think they have to worry that people will forget about them in a couple years or that they'll to go work at the coffee house once they start getting bad reviews in the indie blogs

[RottingApples]

astralweeks, on 15 March 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Arcade Fire had a number one album, sold out arenas, won a grammy for album of the year, so I think it's happening. Without MTV and top 40 radio as a source their music doesn't have the same ubiquity as Nirvana, or the Pumpkins, REM etc did in their prime and I guess that's how he's gauging success in those comments

I do stand by the idea that had Arcade Fire been around 15 years earlier, they would likely have blown up at the same time, and been as big, as the Pumpkins. Solely because the exposure mechanisms would have been different. That is the point I do agree with Corgan on, in all his ramblings. It's the bitterness that comes through on most other points that sours it for me.

Arachnea, on 15 March 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

It is the way he gauges success that I take issue with.

Indeed.

[dudehitscar]

RottingApples, on 15 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

I'm eternally jealous. I'd heard of them for the longest time, but never bothered to check them out because all the indie/ hipster kids raved about them. I finally swallowed my pride a year ago and gave them a listen. I hadn't felt what I felt at that moment since I first gave the Pumpkins a chance back in 2003.

This is why I read pitchfork... For all their flaws they have been the only music site that has truly been ahead of the curve on some bands and deliver some gems. They turned me onto arcade fire and I went to see them play on the second floor of a bowling alley that year.. Amazing show. The weird thing is they won a Grammy for their worst record.

Last year pitchforks gift to me was 40 watt sun. What a powerful record. Makes up for all the snobbery on that site.. They are so wrong on the early Volta records its not even funny.

[Arachnea]

RottingApples, on 15 March 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

I do stand by the idea that had Arcade Fire been around 15 years earlier, they would likely have blown up at the same time, and been as big, as the Pumpkins. Solely because the exposure mechanisms would have been different. That is the point I do agree with Corgan on, in all his ramblings. It's the bitterness that comes through on most other points that sours it for me.

I agree. I also do not think ubiquity should be a factor in how to gauge the success and influence of the band, yet that is what Billy appears to be doing. Hence, it appears almost like a back-handed compliment because the bitterness appears so evident in his words. That is what I took issue with. I wonder if his own insecurity and dissatisfaction with his own place in the music canon (particularly by critics) has influenced his rants on this subject.

It seems like Billy does not want to accept or understand that world wide fame and mainstream monetary success does not stand as a barometer for artistic vision and influence on the world of music (hence his obsession with crossover appeal). There are countless bands that I could name that have had massive influences on so many mainstream and indie bands that have had very limited success or have not made a dent in the charts (yet you hear them as an influence everywhere, everyone cites them as an influence, and they often make the greatest albums lists). Part of being a great artist and innovator is being a few steps ahead from the rest, which unfortunately almost always does not lead to massive success or even critical dues, particularly not in their own time.

[astralweeks]

Arachnea, on 15 March 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Hence, it appears almost like a back-handed compliment because the bitterness appears so evident in his words. That is what I took issue with. I wonder if his own insecurity and dissatisfaction with his own place in the music canon (particularly by critics) has influenced his rants on this subject.

Just to give Corgan the benefit of the doubt, I'll recount my personal experiences seeing the Pumpkins on an arena tour during the MCIS era compared with an Arcade Fire show from their last tour to try and make a point..

At the Pumpkins show in 95 you saw all of the Breakfast Club archetypes represented (The jock, stoner, prom queen, neurotic, intellectual etc). The next day at school they were all wearing the T-shirt. Maybe the Pumpkins were never as big as the Beatles, but for people of my (our?) generation it was a bit of a communal moment. a diverse group of people can share in a sense of nostaligia whenever "1979" gets played on the radio (I'm sure BC hates that too though)


At the Arcade Fire arena show I looked around and saw that 90 percent of the crowd appeared to be educated, middle class hipster types. I know you touched on the idea of great music and art being too sophisticated or ahead of its time for mainstream consumption. But I don't think that's the case with Arcade Fire. Their music might be artistic, ambitious, pretentious, etc (like classic Pumpkins), but its' essentialy anthemic pop music. I think there's some validity to Corgan's point that their music shouldn't be appealing to a selective audience. it's better than that..

peronsally I've just accepted the change. Corgan refuses to for whatever reason

[RottingApples]

dudehitscar, on 15 March 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

They turned me onto arcade fire and I went to see them play on the second floor of a bowling alley that year.. Amazing show.

:jawdropper:/> I can't even begin to imagine what that must have been like.

dudehitscar, on 15 March 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

The weird thing is they won a Grammy for their worst record.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, buddy. ;)/>

I'd put The Suburbs almost on par with Mellon Collie. In fact, had it been just a little grander in scope and actually been a double album, I just might have to put it on par.

If there is such a thing as a "worst" Arcade Fire album, I'd personally have to choose Neon Bible, but even then I feel bad saying that. I feel about Neon Bible as I feel about Adore. It's so beautiful, in such a dark, depressing kind of way, that I find myself in few mindsets where I can actually sit down and go through it. Not because either of them are bad, just because it really takes it out of you to listen to them.

[dudehitscar]

RottingApples, on 15 March 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

:jawdropper:/> I can't even begin to imagine what that must have been like.


I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, buddy. ;)/>

I'd put The Suburbs almost on par with Mellon Collie. In fact, had it been just a little grander in scope and actually been a double album, I just might have to put it on par.

If there is such a thing as a "worst" Arcade Fire album, I'd personally have to choose Neon Bible, but even then I feel bad saying that. I feel about Neon Bible as I feel about Adore. It's so beautiful, in such a dark, depressing kind of way, that I find myself in few mindsets where I can actually sit down and go through it. Not because either of them are bad, just because it really takes it out of you to listen to them.

Nothing arcade fire has done is fit to lick mcis's balls... But I agree it's a great album. :happy:/>

This post has been edited by dudehitscar: 15 March 2012 - 05:50 PM

[Arachnea]

astralweeks, on 15 March 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Just to give Corgan the benefit of the doubt, I'll recount my personal experiences seeing the Pumpkins on an arena tour during the MCIS era compared with an Arcade Fire show from their last tour to try and make a point..

At the Pumpkins show in 95 you saw all of the Breakfast Club archetypes represented (The jock, stoner, prom queen, neurotic, intellectual etc). The next day at school they were all wearing the T-shirt. Maybe the Pumpkins were never as big as the Beatles, but for people of my (our?) generation it was a bit of a communal moment. a diverse group of people can share in a sense of nostaligia whenever "1979" gets played on the radio (I'm sure BC hates that too though)

At the Arcade Fire arena show I looked around and saw that 90 percent of the crowd appeared to be educated, middle class hipster types.

Sure, but how many of those people walked away as fans? How many were there simply because it was "cool"? The band notoriously would play silverfuck to drive those people away. It was mtv and top 40 radio that brought all of those people together. That was the outlet that told people what to listen to. It was a very different culture (and subculture) in the early-mid 90s. These days people have way more options in what they want to hear and how they can access it, hence the crowds are going to be very different. I would even argue that the Pitchfork crowd, like mtv's function, has had some influence on the type of crowds they get. I think this change mainly has to do with the collapse of the previous system and a cultural and technological shift.

astralweeks, on 15 March 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I know you touched on the idea of great music and art being too sophisticated or ahead of its time for mainstream consumption. But I don't think that's the case with Arcade Fire. Their music might be artistic, ambitious, pretentious, etc (like classic Pumpkins), but its' essentialy anthemic pop music. I think there's some validity to Corgan's point that their music shouldn't be appealing to a selective audience. it's better than that..

peronsally I've just accepted the change. Corgan refuses to for whatever reason

I never would have classified them as anthemic pop music, maybe some of their songs are but not as a whole. I would not classify them as an easily accessible band either. They may not reach the same influential impact as Joy Division but neither will SP. I think very few bands fall into that category. Furthermore, I think the Arcade Fire still has a lot left in them and I am hesitant to think that they will not push the envelope as they develop as musicians and artists.

Anyway, I agree with you for the most part, I am just not sure what Billy is really trying to get at. There are a lot of contradictions amongst his better points (which leads to the obscuration of his better points).

[dudehitscar]

RottingApples, on 15 March 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

:jawdropper:/> I can't even begin to imagine what that must have been like

It was a bit like this..

[MoonPI]

I think one thing Billy is trying to say is...that there are many talented bands out there, (indie etc) that get overshadowed by the crap bands...the crap bands get all the play, get the contracts, get the exposure, the crowds..

[RottingApples]

astralweeks, on 15 March 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

At the Arcade Fire arena show I looked around and saw that 90 percent of the crowd appeared to be educated, middle class hipster types. I know you touched on the idea of great music and art being too sophisticated or ahead of its time for mainstream consumption.

Again, though. I think that has much more to do with the lack of medium exposure. Yes, Arcade Fire are not an unknown band, but they have had very limited exposure. A lot of their fans are people who went looking for quality music (hence, the educated, music snobbery types). With the Pumpkins in 1996, it's because they were all over magazines, chart topping, MTV darlings, allowing maximum exposure for all kinds of people (including those jocks, prom queens, etc). I don't think it's because their music is any more narrowly focused than the Pumpkins, it's because they aren't the "top, most popular thing" getting shoved down everyone's throats. The closest they came was with the Grammy win last year, and even then you had everyone going "who the fuck are these guys?" So I really think it's much more about the medium exposure than anything else.

[astralweeks]

Arachnea, on 15 March 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Sure, but how many of those people walked away as fans? How many were there simply because it was "cool"? The band notoriously would play silverfuck to drive those people away. It was mtv and top 40 radio that brought all of those people together. That was the outlet that told what to listen to. It was a very different culture (and subculture) in the early-mid 90s. These days people have way more options in what they want to hear and how they can access it, hence the crowds are going to be very different. I would even argue that the Pitchfork crowd, like mtv's function, has had some influence on the type of crowds they get. I think this change mainly has to do with the collapse of the previous system and a cultural and technological shift.

How many people walked away as fans? It depends what you mean by "fan."

Only about 20 or so of us care enough to be disussing the merits of the Pumpkins music on a message board over a decade and a half later. But those songs were the soundtrack to a moment in time for an entire genration. Corgan's been adamant about never wanting the Pumpkins fanbase to be some sort of insular, elitist club. He wants the music to reach as many people as possible. I've grown up with that concept of the cult band having an inherent mystique, and I think it's kind of cool that Corgan goes in the completely opposite direction. The Pumpkins changed music for me in my formative yrs, and I didn't have the password, or know the secret handshake.

I completely agree with your point about music changing in the new millenium. I've accepted the differences.

[RottingApples]

dudehitscar, on 15 March 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Nothing arcade fire has done is fit to lick mcis's balls...

:lol:/> You obviously don't know how much the Suburbs means to me, sir. But even still, you're right, it doesn't match MCIS.

Arachnea, on 15 March 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Sure, but how many of those people walked away as fans? How many were there simply because it was "cool"? The band notoriously would play silverfuck to drive those people away. It was mtv and top 40 radio that brought all of those people together. That was the outlet that told people what to listen to. It was a very different culture (and subculture) in the early-mid 90s.

Exactly.

[astralweeks]

Arachnea, on 15 March 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

I never would have classified them as anthemic pop music, maybe some of their songs are but not as a whole. I would not classify them as an easily accessible band either. They may not reach the same influential impact as Joy Division but neither will SP. I think very few bands fall into that category. Furthermore, I think the Arcade Fire still has a lot left in them and I am hesitant to think that they will not push the envelope as they develop as musicians and artists.

Anyway, I agree with you for the most part, I am just not sure what Billy is really trying to get at. There are a lot of contradictions amongst his better points (which leads to the obscuration of his better points).

I'm generalizing the music as anthemic pop. But The Joshua Tree has somber, brooding moments and it was still one of the biggest albums of alltime. I don't think of Arcade Fire as that far off from U2 in that sense.

Joy Division made a mark, but their lead singer passes away at a young age and the rest of the members went on to be in a huge 80's alt pop band. it's a complicated situation. they had contemporaries like The Waterboys, The Sound, etc who were great, but never really given their due.. which is a shame

[Arachnea]

astralweeks, on 15 March 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

I'm generalizing the music as anthemic pop. But The Joshua Tree has somber, brooding moments and it was still one of the biggest albums of alltime. I don't think of Arcade Fire as that far off from U2 in that sense.

I agree. It is one of my favorites but The Joshua Tree does not seem like an album that should have done as well as it did but I also think the strength of its singles contributed to its massive success. Speaking of U2, Echo and the Bunnymen should have been much bigger.

astralweeks, on 15 March 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Joy Division made a mark, but their lead singer passes away at a young age and the rest of the members went on to be in a huge 80's alt pop band. it's a complicated situation. they had contemporaries like The Waterboys, The Sound, etc who were great, but never really given their due.. which is a shame

It was the sound and atmosphere that Joy Division created that has been mimicked by so many, and they only started getting the bulk of their dues in the past decade. They are one of those bands that could have been forgotten or obscured by New Order's success yet it was Joy Division that is most cited by post-punk and contemporary rock bands. They were one of those "niche" bands that had a huge impact on different genres. I am an even bigger fan of New Order and they have certainly left their mark in their own right. But you are right, it is a complicated situation, rare even.

I also agree. Those were also great bands that do not often get mentioned.