PDA

View Full Version : Speculation: 4/8 DLC



toymachinesh
04-04-2014, 11:14 PM
http://i.imgur.com/U3e03lz.png

http://i.imgur.com/CV2FsIF.png

dallasdave22
04-04-2014, 11:32 PM
On disk band that's older stuff....

That could be Dylan, Cooper or Kinks...I don't see any other names that jump out with those requirements.

edit:

Yup: Paul : The legendary artist for next week performed in Vegas and shockingly didn't fill the house?!

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/ae/2012/oct/31/bob-dylan-plays-empty-seats-and-still-makes-it-mem/
Bob Dylan shouldn’t be playing arenas, especially in Las Vegas. That was one obvious takeaway from Saturday night’s Mandalay Bay Events Center tour stop, which found more seats vacant than not. By night’s end, even more were empty, a product of the iconic poet-rocker’s unique ability to madden folks who thought they were fans. But those who left early missed out, on a show toward the good end of Dylan’s unpredictable live teeter-totter.

futile67
04-04-2014, 11:45 PM
If it's Bob Dylan, it'll be 4 weeks in a row without DLC for me. Maybe it's time to try some of those previous packs I didn't get.

toymachinesh
04-04-2014, 11:52 PM
Couldn't it also be Def Leppard?

as_uninvited
04-05-2014, 12:07 AM
''the legendary artist'' leads me to believe it is an individual, and not a band. Dylan sounds like a good guess. You all are better at this than me though on these weekly riddles!

Not my favorite by any stretch. Depending on the songs, probably a no purchase for me ........ But I greatly appreciate it being a different henre and era pack form alot of the stuff we've seen lately.

This would actually be a pack I'd buy when we run into another patch of week after of week of artists I don't like that get clumped together.

RokDog007
04-05-2014, 12:08 AM
Paul states Legendary Artist(singular) instead of a Legendary Band
so I would think Tom Petty or Bob Dylan would be a better chance than Def Leppard

as_uninvited
04-05-2014, 12:15 AM
lmao.... So maybe Toy is correct!


@DetroitBuckets 20m
@squirrellyninja hope I'm wrong, but I bet 'older' is only gonna take us to the mid 90's or so


‏@squirrellyninja 11m
@DetroitBuckets The Matchbox Twenty songs "3 AM" and "Push" date back to 1996. It's why I said "(relatively) newer". Def older than that.




''Def older than that''. Looks like a 'hint' to me.

CrazedRacer
04-05-2014, 12:24 AM
I think the DL shows in Vegas were pretty much sellouts for the entire run... I may be wrong. Dylan sounds more likely.

MAng0r3
04-05-2014, 12:31 AM
The legendary artist formely knowed as Prince?

toymachinesh
04-05-2014, 12:32 AM
Yeah I'm inclined to go with Bob Dylan at this point

MAng0r3
04-05-2014, 01:01 AM
Could it be Albert or BB King???? Clapton?? David Bowie?

It's not suppose to be a new artist so it's an artist already on RS i guess?

DanAmrich
04-05-2014, 02:02 AM
http://bunnyears.net/rrc/Josie1.gif

You didn't hear it from me.

toymachinesh
04-05-2014, 02:31 AM
http://bunnyears.net/rrc/Josie1.gif

You didn't hear it from me.

The Archies confirmed

mdaas321
04-05-2014, 02:46 AM
I am inclined to think Dylan also, but the name of the band in the image above is

http://wiki.archiefans.com/images/5/5b/Bo_jatp_med.jpg

Pussycats, does that indirectly lead back to Def Leppard?

edit: Do we have any confirmation that this DLC will be an on disc artist?

as_uninvited
04-05-2014, 02:52 AM
Steely Dan have a song named Josie

toymachinesh
04-05-2014, 02:53 AM
edit: Do we have any confirmation that this DLC will be an on disc artist?

It's a safe bet after 4 weeks of all new

mdaas321
04-05-2014, 03:11 AM
So this is one of the DLC songs then


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEdWvYA0icg

Lol wife said they are wearing leopard outfits, and they are definitely tone deaf in this video. So it must be Def Leppard.

elemenohpenc
04-05-2014, 04:22 AM
Steely Dan have a song named Josie

as much as I'd LOVE Steely Dan, it looks like Def Leppard. meh. i'm sure that'll be fun to play, too.

SeattleSauve
04-05-2014, 04:29 AM
Def Leppard actually has a lot of fun guitar, so if it is Def Leppard, that's fine with me.

RokDog007
04-05-2014, 04:35 AM
I am inclined to think Dylan also, but the name of the band in the image above is

http://wiki.archiefans.com/images/5/5b/Bo_jatp_med.jpg

Pussycats, does that indirectly lead back to Def Leppard?



those PussyCats are in Leopard print outfits

MAng0r3
04-05-2014, 04:52 AM
http://i.imgur.com/U3e03lz.png

http://i.imgur.com/CV2FsIF.png


Legendary artist doesn't fit Def Leppard that much.

toymachinesh
04-05-2014, 05:16 AM
lol I'm right there with you but many other people would disagree

MAng0r3
04-05-2014, 05:22 AM
Legendary artist would fit Dylan, Bowie, Clapton, Albert and BB King for sure.

How about B 52's? That's what Dan's post make me think about,

As for legendary bands there are 2 bands in RS that fits the word......Rolling Stones and Iron Maiden can't think of any other for now. Radiohead will probably earn this too someday imho.

Greenbrick2
04-05-2014, 05:25 AM
I'm more likely to pick up the AFI pack than Dylan.

If they release a Josie and the Pussycats pack, I will have a Pussycats costume commissioned in my size and record videos of myself playing all parts on both instruments in the costume. I wonder if Ubisoft will accept my challenge...

Is Kittie legendary? I'm sure they'd never fill a show in Vegas.

Def Leppard will be dependent on the songs for me. I was never a big fan, but I picked up the Boston pack because they're all songs I've heard a million times on classic rock radio.

DanAmrich
04-05-2014, 07:28 AM
It could be a pre-Charlie's Angels Cheryl Ladd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josie_and_the_Pussycats_(album))...OR...maybe it's just a GIF of Josie rockin' out. I don't recall a Hanna-Barbera cartoon playing Vegas, mostly because 2D cels of hastily created animation rarely headline venues on the strip.

http://thelibertycaucus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/tin_foil_hat.gif

;)

GuitarZenTen
04-05-2014, 10:56 AM
From a review in the Las Vegas Sun . . .


And while Leppard probably never played to a house with more than 1,000 empty seats during its stadium touring heyday, the band gave its defiant supporters exactly what they came for: big, raucous sounds and bright, flashing lights, as if it were 1987 all over again.

So looks like it is Def Leppard. Wouldn't say I was a fan, but they're one of the few Hair/Metal bands of the 80's who released a few tunes I enjoyed. I'll pick up Animal if that's in the pack, maybe Love Bites, don't know many of the others and I remember some really dodgy singles after Hysteria.

craigysa
04-05-2014, 11:46 AM
The article (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2002/dec/09/def-leppard-still-rocking/) also states there were only 6700 fans making it less than 56% of capacity.

DAVID2380
04-05-2014, 02:45 PM
I wouldn't call D L legendary, but some of their older stuff is pretty good, and decent on guitar. Pour some is actually one of the last songs that I would have picked to be on disc so IMO, it can only get better....Foolin, Bringing on the Heartache and Animal would all make good choices....

CrazedRacer
04-05-2014, 02:57 PM
Legendary artist doesn't fit Def Leppard that much.

LOL... 2 diamond awards - for Pyromania and Hysteria... Hysteria sold 20 million albums... They've sold 100 Million worldwide... I'd say that pretty damn legendary.

If it is DL, I'm all in...

Hoping for Hysteria, Animal and Foolin' or Rock of Ages... If it's a 5 pack, I'll take those 4 and Photograph...

as_uninvited
04-05-2014, 03:27 PM
I wouldn't call myself a fan of Def, but know and like most of their hits. And while they wouldn't be in my top 50-100 requests, I'll gladly buy the entire pack regardless of song selections. (though I'd hope to see Photograph and Bringin on the Heartbreak)

As one of the many who have been moaning and groaning of late with the DLC selections in RS14, I will absolutely give my $ for this pack, letting my wallet backup my words. Hopefully others in the 'older crowd' not in love with many of the newer releases do the same to show developers that there is indeed a desire and viable market for the older artists.

Thank you Rocksmith!

Duggle-SD
04-05-2014, 03:39 PM
Don't let the leopard outfits distract you. Josie sounds like Jessie so clearly we are getting a Rick Springfield 10 pack.

P.S. I still think that if it is to be Def Leppard they should have released it and Foolin last week on fools day, but I'm just like that.

dm_gsxr
04-05-2014, 03:47 PM
Pyromania is my favorite. Until Rocksmith, I didn't know pour some sugar on me.

Carl

RokDog007
04-05-2014, 03:54 PM
if they get a D.L./DLC pack right it would be loads of fun

it could actually be a really good 10 Pack

http://www.thetoptens.com/greatest-def-leppard-songs/

MoldyRhyme94061
04-05-2014, 05:03 PM
Awesome. I'm very excited for Tuesday if it is in fact Def Leppard. They have so many fun sounding songs to choose from.

muscular_tiger
04-05-2014, 05:05 PM
Not a huge fan but anything's better than the last few weeks.

Greenbrick2
04-05-2014, 05:54 PM
I wouldn't call D L legendary

Go check out the chart numbers next to their releases on Wikipedia. Def Leppard always sells. Their tours have been the same way. There aren't many groups that aren't Madonna or Michael Jackson or Britney Spears that come close to that consistency.

MAng0r3
04-05-2014, 07:28 PM
LOL... 2 diamond awards - for Pyromania and Hysteria... Hysteria sold 20 million albums... They've sold 100 Million worldwide... I'd say that pretty damn legendary.

If it is DL, I'm all in...

Hoping for Hysteria, Animal and Foolin' or Rock of Ages... If it's a 5 pack, I'll take those 4 and Photograph...

I wasn't aware that commercial success was automatically enttitling a band for being quote as legendary.

Not that i don't have some taste for some of their hits but i'm not hearing music genius in their stuff either. Rather more commercial genius.

And i don't think that they actually are a landmark in rock history either so explain why you think they are legends??

I'm sure that if we do a thread about legendary bands Def Leppard wont get that much support.

This being said enjoy the DLC anyway.

pedietz
04-05-2014, 07:31 PM
They are rock legends because they are going on 4 decades of success!

DanAmrich
04-05-2014, 07:32 PM
we are getting a Rick Springfield 10 pack.

As a child of the 80s, I hope you're right!

guitarman529
04-05-2014, 07:43 PM
If it is true that will be a instant buy for me. Hoping its;

Hysteria -This song is a must in the pack
Love Bites
Rock of Ages
Animal
Foolin'

MAng0r3
04-05-2014, 07:47 PM
They are rock legends because they are going on 4 decades of success!

A 34 years career with first success in the 80's and last in the 90's still doesn't make 4 decades of success...you're probably thinking about The rolling Stones.

I'd compare Def Leppard carreer to Motley Crue's. Pretty similar. Still prefer Motley crue's songs.

http://voices.yahoo.com/top-selling-music-artists-all-time-7216668.html?cat=33

mdaas321
04-05-2014, 08:34 PM
For some reason I get the feeling Dan is trolling us with the Josie gif to throw us off ;) Regardless if he is, its nice to see a Comdev actually communicating with the community.

DAVID2380
04-05-2014, 10:40 PM
Go check out the chart numbers next to their releases on Wikipedia. Def Leppard always sells. Their tours have been the same way. There aren't many groups that aren't Madonna or Michael Jackson or Britney Spears that come close to that consistency.

I never stated that they didn't sell I said that they weren't legendary. Would you consider Nickelback legendary? The only artists that have been in rocksmith that I would consider legendary are the Who, The Doors, Aerosmith,Iron Maiden , Chicago, Boston, Dylan, Queen, Rush, The Stones, Bowie, Clapton and BBKing.That is also leaving out many that are on the fence that would come before Def Leppard. I like D L, but they aren't legendary.....

DAVID2380
04-05-2014, 10:43 PM
A 34 years career with first success in the 80's and last in the 90's still doesn't make 4 decades of success...you're probably thinking about The rolling Stones.

I'd compare Def Leppard carreer to Motley Crue's. Pretty similar. Still prefer Motley crue's songs.

http://voices.yahoo.com/top-selling-music-artists-all-time-7216668.html?cat=33

good point and The Crue are FAR from legendary...

RokDog007
04-06-2014, 12:33 AM
see #3



legendary

Houghton Mifflin

adj.adjective
1.
Of, constituting, based on, or of the nature of a legend.

2.
Celebrated in legend.

3.
Extremely well known; famous or renowned


Hysteria IS a legendary album
& having sold 100 million + records World Wide I would say they are pretty well known

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Def_Leppard

Kynlore
04-06-2014, 01:05 AM
good point and The Crue are FAR from legendary...

I hope that is sarcasm.

MAng0r3
04-06-2014, 03:21 AM
see #3



legendary

Houghton Mifflin

adj.adjective
1.
Of, constituting, based on, or of the nature of a legend.

2.
Celebrated in legend.

3.
Extremely well known; famous or renowned


Hysteria IS a legendary album
& having sold 100 million + records World Wide I would say they are pretty well known

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Def_Leppard


Then we'll have to find a new adjective to determine the carreer and influence of Bach, Mozart, Bethoven, Paganninii, Listz, Sor, Agustin Barrios, Robert Johnson, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, The Beatles,The rolling stones, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Metallica, Iron Maiden, U2, RHCP to name a few legends.

BazzTard61
04-06-2014, 05:36 AM
they throw about terms like 'legendary' to mean anyone with fame.

Still, they HAVE been playing together for 5 decades so deserve a pack, more so than the last few week's artists.

I wonder if they'd be as famous if their drummer didn't lose an arm, AND continue to drum, now THAT is legendary !!

Greenbrick2
04-06-2014, 06:03 AM
I never stated that they didn't sell I said that they weren't legendary. Would you consider Nickelback legendary? The only artists that have been in rocksmith that I would consider legendary are the Who, The Doors, Aerosmith,Iron Maiden , Chicago, Boston, Dylan, Queen, Rush, The Stones, Bowie, Clapton and BBKing.That is also leaving out many that are on the fence that would come before Def Leppard. I like D L, but they aren't legendary.....

I would argue against Dylan and Bowie on that list. I know a lot of people would argue Rush also, but not me. :)

I'm more disappointed that no one wanted to see me performing in a Pussycats costume. I'd probably get a million views on Youtube that way! Def Leppard isn't enough for me to get the costume, though, it would have to be a donation. I'll probably end up picking up the pack, it'd be hard for them to pick songs that I don't know well. Just praying for no White Lightning, can't stand that one...

VarriusTX
04-06-2014, 08:05 AM
It really just depends on your definition of "legendary". Take Van Gogh as an example. He was not well known during his lifetime, but he has been a huge influence in art and I don't think anyone would not call him legendary. Of course, that is today.. during his lifetime he was not legendary, or was he, and they just didn't know it?

So, is your definition of legendary meaning "anyone who sold 100 million copies", or is it that they left an impactful impression with their art?

Justin Bieber is well known and has sold a lot of albums, that doesn't make him legendary to me. I would better describe him as popular, along with anyone else who may have sold 100 million copies of a record. My definition of legendary is the latter, that they left a lasting impression with their art and influenced future generations. I'm not so sure Def Leppard would qualify under my definition of legendary, though I do really like a lot of their music.

Interesting: Van Gogh does not flag my spell check, Bieber and Def Leppard do. I wonder if that tells us anything?

But to each their own, and if you want to call someone legendary because they sold 100 million copies and have been around for forever, that's your choice. However, by your criterion you must realize that you have to afford this luxury to anyone who sells 100 million copies, even if it's Justin Bieber.

futile67
04-06-2014, 10:37 AM
+1 :cool:

CrazedRacer
04-06-2014, 12:48 PM
I never stated that they didn't sell I said that they weren't legendary. Would you consider Nickelback legendary? The only artists that have been in rocksmith that I would consider legendary are the Who, The Doors, Aerosmith,Iron Maiden , Chicago, Boston, Dylan, Queen, Rush, The Stones, Bowie, Clapton and BBKing.That is also leaving out many that are on the fence that would come before Def Leppard. I like D L, but they aren't legendary.....

I think the whole "Who is legendary" argument depends on what you like... I wouldn't consider Iron Maiden, Chicago, Rush or Bowie legendary out of that list.

I DO consider Crue and Def Leppard legendary . Another "hair band" that I consider legendary is Bon Jovi. I consider "legendary" to be someone that took either their own music or a genre of music to a greater acceptance and popularity. That's why, in another genre/time, I'd consider Nirvana and Soundgarden to be legendary.

DAVID2380
04-06-2014, 01:00 PM
It really just depends on your definition of "legendary". Take Van Gogh as an example. He was not well known during his lifetime, but he has been a huge influence in art and I don't think anyone would not call him legendary. Of course, that is today.. during his lifetime he was not legendary, or was he, and they just didn't know it?

So, is your definition of legendary meaning "anyone who sold 100 million copies", or is it that they left an impactful impression with their art?

Justin Bieber is well known and has sold a lot of albums, that doesn't make him legendary to me. I would better describe him as popular, along with anyone else who may have sold 100 million copies of a record. My definition of legendary is the latter, that they left a lasting impression with their art and influenced future generations. I'm not so sure Def Leppard would qualify under my definition of legendary, though I do really like a lot of their music.

Interesting: Van Gogh does not flag my spell check, Bieber and Def Leppard do. I wonder if that tells us anything?

But to each their own, and if you want to call someone legendary because they sold 100 million copies and have been around for forever, that's your choice. However, by your criterion you must realize that you have to afford this luxury to anyone who sells 100 million copies, even if it's Justin Bieber.

I absolutely agree with your assessment....very well stated...

DAVID2380
04-06-2014, 01:15 PM
I think the whole "Who is legendary" argument depends on what you like... I wouldn't consider Iron Maiden, Chicago, Rush or Bowie legendary out of that list.

I DO consider Crue and Def Leppard legendary . Another "hair band" that I consider legendary is Bon Jovi. I consider "legendary" to be someone that took either their own music or a genre of music to a greater acceptance and popularity. That's why, in another genre/time, I'd consider Nirvana and Soundgarden to be legendary.

If "legendary is someone that took a genre of music to a great popularity", how could you not consider Maiden legendary? Almost Every contemporary metal band has learned, borrowed and imitated their music and they would be the first to admit it. From Metallica, Dream Theater, Avenged Sevenfold, Coheed and Cambria, Megadeath, Queensryche, Accept, Pantera, Slayer, Savatage(which also leads to Trans Siberian Orchestra, who, if you've never seen them put on an excellent show). You'd probably have a shorter list if you wanted to include Metal/hard rock bands that WEREN'T influenced by Maiden. Now, I find it hard to believe Def Leppard,The Crue or Bon Jovi had that many proteges or influenced even half of the musicians that maiden has...

DAVID2380
04-06-2014, 01:19 PM
I would argue against Dylan and Bowie on that list. I know a lot of people would argue Rush also, but not me. :)

I'm more disappointed that no one wanted to see me performing in a Pussycats costume. I'd probably get a million views on Youtube that way! Def Leppard isn't enough for me to get the costume, though, it would have to be a donation. I'll probably end up picking up the pack, it'd be hard for them to pick songs that I don't know well. Just praying for no White Lightning, can't stand that one...

You have an argument about Dylan and Bowie, although I do believe Dylan IS a legendary songwriter. But, I would agree, they could be left off the list....

RokDog007
04-06-2014, 01:50 PM
they throw about terms like 'legendary' to mean anyone with fame.

Still, they HAVE been playing together for 5 decades so deserve a pack, more so than the last few week's artists.

I wonder if they'd be as famous if their drummer didn't lose an arm, AND continue to drum, now THAT is legendary !!

nah, that would be GroundBreaking or Trailblazing
or some may argue why should a ALMOST Darwin Award Winner be revered at all....?

RokDog007
04-06-2014, 02:03 PM
If "legendary is someone that took a genre of music to a great popularity", how could you not consider Maiden legendary? Almost Every contemporary metal band has learned, borrowed and imitated their music and they would be the first to admit it. From Metallica, Dream Theater, Avenged Sevenfold, Coheed and Cambria, Megadeath, Queensryche, Accept, Pantera, Slayer, Savatage(which also leads to Trans Siberian Orchestra, who, if you've never seen them put on an excellent show). You'd probably have a shorter list if you wanted to include Metal/hard rock bands that WEREN'T influenced by Maiden. Now, I find it hard to believe Def Leppard,The Crue or Bon Jovi had that many proteges or influenced even half of the musicians that maiden has...

when your kids are old enough to understand your repeating the stories of how great those bands were
and when you put one of their albums on the turn table & jam out with your kids to these bands Hit Songs then they will become.............Legendary.......via the passage of time and story passed on to another generation

for to be termed Legendary
it must also satisfy/comply to the rules of a Legend



legend

Houghton Mifflin

n.noun
1.
An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.

2.
A body or collection of such stories.

3.
A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.

4.
One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.

5.
An inscription or a title on an object, such as a coin.

6.
An explanatory caption accompanying an illustration.

7.
An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart.


its not all that difficult to be termed....Legendary

jgrantham7
04-06-2014, 02:28 PM
Interesting: Van Gogh does not flag my spell check, Bieber and Def Leppard do. I wonder if that tells us anything?



That must be the spellchecker's definition of legendary.

CrazedRacer
04-06-2014, 05:42 PM
If "legendary is someone that took a genre of music to a great popularity", how could you not consider Maiden legendary? Almost Every contemporary metal band has learned, borrowed and imitated their music and they would be the first to admit it. From Metallica, Dream Theater, Avenged Sevenfold, Coheed and Cambria, Megadeath, Queensryche, Accept, Pantera, Slayer, Savatage(which also leads to Trans Siberian Orchestra, who, if you've never seen them put on an excellent show). You'd probably have a shorter list if you wanted to include Metal/hard rock bands that WEREN'T influenced by Maiden. Now, I find it hard to believe Def Leppard,The Crue or Bon Jovi had that many proteges or influenced even half of the musicians that maiden has...

But that's because, obviously, you're a Maiden fan... I never was. Def Leppard, though??? I still remember skipping school to buy "Hysteria" on release day. I still remember seeing them live "in the round" on the Hysteria tour. I've played "Pour Some Sugar on Me" like 60 times in RS2014. I played "The Trooper" once just to get the played 'em all achievement.

"Legendary" isn't definable to any set list. You can't find a list of bands that are legendary that EVERYONE agrees are the ONLY ones that get that status - because "Legendary" means something different to everyone. It's just a dumb argument to say "That band isn't legendary, but THIS band (that I LOVE) is CERTAINLY legendary!!!!"

Duggle-SD
04-06-2014, 05:56 PM
4. One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.
(this is not pointed at your opinions RokDog, just using your quote)

It is easy to discount something that is not to your particular musical tastes as not being something great but the sales that Def Leppard had would suggest legendary. 80s metal (or any metal for that matter) was never my thing but the kind of sales, fame and popularity that Def Leppard had would suggest that they were doing something right. I would have no problem with anyone using the term legendary for them.

You guys that reserve the term legendary for artists like The Beatles, for your narrow use of the term legendary what is it about The Beatles that qualifies them? Is it because they were hugely popular and had fantastic album sales for their time? Don't think that it was they that pushed the boundaries of music and changed rock as some suggest because they were getting just as much from other groups (that never achieved great fame) at that time as others were getting from them. Listen to something like My White Bicycle by Tomorrow, this was one of the many bands that The Beatles were paying attention to as well as many others.

You guys that throw Justin Biebers name out there, you are probably right. I don't like him, you don't like him, but a lot of todays young people like him a lot so he will probably become a legendary artist, if he continues acting like an idiot and dies young, even more legendary. Does anyone deny Michael Jackson was legendary? with his huge sales he was doing something right too.

Edit: I guess I was writing to use the same argument as the guy above me. Don't discount a group just because it's not your particular favorite. The term legendary is very subjective.


My definition of legendary is the latter, that they left a lasting impression with their art and influenced future generations

And you don't think that Justin Bieber is doing this?

MAng0r3
04-06-2014, 06:35 PM
You guys that reserve the term legendary for artists like The Beatles, for your narrow use of the term legendary what is it about The Beatles that qualifies them? Is it because they were hugely popular and had fantastic album sales for their time? Don't think that it was they that pushed the boundaries of music and changed rock as some suggest because they were getting just as much from other groups (that never achieved great fame) at that time as others were getting from them.


I think you really need to review all of what The Beatles achieved and never forget that behind their works there was a man named George Martin. JUst try one Beatle's song and you'll notice right away that they were doing things quit differently in many domains of musical compositions....just the structure of most Beatles's song is always apart from anything on the market.

Steel_Nirvana
04-06-2014, 06:59 PM
The term people should really be looking up in the dictionary is subjective. :nonchalance:

MAng0r3
04-06-2014, 07:02 PM
The term people should really be looking up in the dictionary is subjective. :nonchalance:


This is when somebody likes to stand with status quo. I have no problem to define legendary musician imo and it has nothing to do with my personal tastes. It's just common sense.

The whole discussion here as nothing to do with whatever we like Def Leppard's music or not is more about where they stand in music history.

Even sales cannot be a point of comparison since the era beteween 1980 and 2000 must have been the best sales years of all time due to all the new media (CD, VHS, DVD, MP3) and whole internet era. Before this era and now sales would never compare.

Steel_Nirvana
04-06-2014, 07:05 PM
This is when somebody likes to stand with status quo. I have no problem to define legendary musician imo and it has nothing to do with my personal tastes. It's just common sense.

The whole discussion here as nothing to do with whatever we like Def Leppard's music or not is more about where they stand in music history.

"Common sense" in situations like this is just code for, "If you don't agree with my subjective opinion, you're stupid."

Edit: precision

Duggle-SD
04-06-2014, 07:11 PM
I think you really need to review all of what The Beatles achieved and never forget that behind their works there was a man named George Martin. JUst try one Beatle's song and you'll notice right away that they were doing things quit differently in many domains of musical compositions....just the structure of most Beatles's song is always apart from anything on the market.

I have no problem calling The Beatles legendary, I certainly also call George Martin legendary, he was amazing. I do not discount him and The Beatles. The thing that some people aren't seeing is that the impression they (and many others of their time) made on their generation wasn't limited to them. It was still happening during the 80s, it is still happening now. To say that Bieber is nothing and is not influencing a new generation at all is to act the same way that our parents acted when The Bealtles came on the scene. How did they influence haircuts, clothes, actions, etc. Same thing has happened with Bieber.

MAng0r3
04-06-2014, 07:13 PM
"Common sense" is just code for, "If you don't agree with my subjective opinion, you're stupid."

You're the one throwing the big words again. If it's not a fair thing to say tha let's say Jimi Hendrix who influenced 3 to 4 generations of guitarist is a legend then what kind of thinking would we be using in your wise and toughfull views of this subject.

Is Robert Johnson a legend?
Does Sir Paul McCartney is a legend?
Is Mozart a legend?


Does Def Leppeard are legends of music in general or even rock?

I'm sure that a poll would tend to prove that common sense is not as an ego trip as you're trying to say here.

Duggle_SD Can we just keep things about music. I don't care that much for fashion stuff even if i got to admit that culture in general is many parts of arts and lifestyle put together.

toymachinesh
04-06-2014, 07:21 PM
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles “the greatest or most significant or most influential” rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.

MAng0r3
04-06-2014, 07:57 PM
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles “the greatest or most significant or most influential” rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art.

I'll tell you that i don't really care for what mainstream media would say about anybody on earth but i sure did read in many interviews with so many different artist in many art domain that at some point they were influenced by The Beatles themselves or a song they did or something they did. I'M sure that so many statements by so many people can be accounted worthy to understand how much influence the fab four had and still have today IS LEGENDARY.


Anyway it's always easier to sell something when you put the word legendary around it...........even DLC


And that whole music taste are subjective way of thinking it's not that is it totally wrong in which everyone has it own but iT's also like saying my ignorance is as valuable as your knowledge at some point and this also to point out that at some point taste cannot be the only way to listen and appreciate music
''Bach is the greatest musical genius of all time'' in music faculties and communities around the world and pretty much elsewhere it is accepted as true so there must be some comparison possible to classified the quality of a music or musicians and melomanes around the world have got it all wrong for centuries. They may i've a taste for Vivaldi instead of Bach but it wont impair their judgement to estimate that the overall contribution of J.S. Bach is of pure genius.

Fastfood is good!!! But i'm pretty sure French cuisine is better in general. Isn't that common sense?

Duggle-SD
04-06-2014, 09:32 PM
Fastfood is good!!! But i'm pretty sure French cuisine is better in general.

What is your favorite French food?

MAng0r3
04-06-2014, 09:46 PM
What is your favorite French food?

I'm french so it is the kind of cuisine i eat everyday. I'd say any piece of meat ala Cordon bleu and almost any french pastries.

DAVID2380
04-06-2014, 10:27 PM
But that's because, obviously, you're a Maiden fan... I never was. Def Leppard, though??? I still remember skipping school to buy "Hysteria" on release day. I still remember seeing them live "in the round" on the Hysteria tour. I've played "Pour Some Sugar on Me" like 60 times in RS2014. I played "The Trooper" once just to get the played 'em all achievement.

"Legendary" isn't definable to any set list. You can't find a list of bands that are legendary that EVERYONE agrees are the ONLY ones that get that status - because "Legendary" means something different to everyone. It's just a dumb argument to say "That band isn't legendary, but THIS band (that I LOVE) is CERTAINLY legendary!!!!"

I agree that "legendary" isn't definable to any set list, but I was going by how you defined it..."someone that took a genre of music to a great popularity"

For arguments sake, let's forget the term legendary here and use "an artist or band that had a major influence on music in general" Right or Wrong, that is what i consider legendary, not albums sold. Going by that definition, which I agree could be different to everyone, Iron Maiden is a major "legenday" band.

So it has nothing to do with how much of a Maiden fan I am at all. As i stated I am also a Def Leppard fan but I would consider many contemporary bands more "legendary" than them. Nirvana is one. Stone Temple Pilots. Pearl Jam and Soundgarden all come to mind as well. Again, this doesn't mean any one band is better than any other because obviously, that is subjective. But there is no denying influences certain bands have had on music or a certain genre of music.

zaxcv4321
04-06-2014, 11:11 PM
Wow. This devolved into a terrible thread.

Steel_Nirvana
04-06-2014, 11:20 PM
I'm french so it is the kind of cuisine i eat everyday. I'd say any piece of meat ala Cordon bleu and almost any french pastries.

I thought you were Canadian...?

Danny-Ramone
04-06-2014, 11:47 PM
Wow. This devolved into a terrible thread.

'Grown up' men arguing musical tastes = train wreck

toymachinesh
04-06-2014, 11:51 PM
He's French-Canadian

zaxcv4321
04-07-2014, 12:28 AM
'Grown up' men arguing musical tastes = train wreck

Maybe it can be saved by shifting to politics and religion.

Marauder359
04-07-2014, 12:32 AM
Legends aren't legends because of their work or what they do, they're legends because of the impact they have. The Beatles are clearly not the objectively best pop/rock band in the history of the genre... However, they are the most legendary band in the history of the world... not because of their music itself, but because of the impact that music had on culture and music itself. The impact the Beatles had that makes them legendary is two-fold: The first is the direct impact they had on fans... And that's the single aspect almost all of you are focused on in this thread.... the manifestation of their legend by the legends... But that ignores the other half, which is arguably the more important half: The Beatles inspired, either to be like them, or to be unlike them, literally, generations of musical acts. Without the Beatles, modern music wouldn't look anything like itself... either the stuff directly influenced positively by the Beatles, or the negative reaction, like Punk, to the Beatles. Would the Clash have referenced, "phony Beatlemania" if they weren't legends? And would they have referenced them that way if they were legends that they liked? Being a legend doesn't mean you have to like their stuff... it just means you have to objectively respect their place in music history...

Steel_Nirvana
04-07-2014, 01:12 AM
He's French-Canadian

My point exactly. :D

MAng0r3
04-07-2014, 02:21 AM
'Grown up' men arguing musical tastes = train wreck


If you read with a more objective way you'll discover that the thread isn't actually about taste. Yes taste are subjective there is no argument there however music analysis isn't a complete subjective subject and it is easy to determine examining the same musical elements which of two music has much to offer musically wise.

As a musician i can appreciate and analize any music even if i don't have a particular taste for it.

On the other hand the shock here is the use of the word legendary to classified a band who deserves surely a lot respect but do they deserve to be called legendary compare to what already acknowledged legends like those mentionned in this thread and many others who inspired musicians over centuries and also recently.

toymachinesh
04-07-2014, 02:28 AM
Just throwing an example out there as a polarizing band, but would you consider Nine Inch Nails (or Trent Reznor) to be legendary?

MAng0r3
04-07-2014, 02:32 AM
Just throwing an example out there as a polarizing band, but would you consider Nine Inch Nails (or Trent Reznor) to be legendary?

Can say much about them and Reznor but i do have heard so much about them that i think that it could be the case to some extent. One thing i can say is that i read Reznor's name in many articles and interviews in guitar magazines in the last 20 years and i havent read nothing really shocking about any member of Def Leppard.

Marauder359
04-07-2014, 03:12 AM
As a musician i can appreciate and analize any music even if i don't have a particular taste for it.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...


Just throwing an example out there as a polarizing band, but would you consider Nine Inch Nails (or Trent Reznor) to be legendary?

I question the question... "would you consider"... There is the problem. Legends are legends, it's not a matter of whether I consider their ability legendary, or whether I worship their abilities, or anything like that. Are they legendary? That's the question... and NIN, within their realm, certainly qualifies... not because I like or dislike them, that is irrelevant... and not whether I see their musical value or not... Nine Inch Nails was massively influential, and, by proxy, still is. Legends? Within their niche, certainly so.

toymachinesh
04-07-2014, 03:18 AM
So Legendary status comes with one of those 'I don't like them but I respect what they did" statements ;)

JakeSeattleX19
04-07-2014, 03:19 AM
@squirrellyninja If you misread next week's DLC you won't think of Alf, but don't get it mixed up with one of the five best rappers of all time.

misdirection? because this seems to obvious


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9lg6HqJeY0

Marauder359
04-07-2014, 03:28 AM
So Legendary status comes with one of those 'I don't like them but I respect what they did" statements ;)

Not necessarily, but certainly can.

Take Muddy Waters... Do I really want to sit around listening to Muddy Waters? Not really... but without Muddy Waters you don't get Dylan, and without Dylan you don't get Tom Petty... and without Tom Petty, you don't get the last 35 years of rock music... at least not the way it's been.

So, is Muddy Waters someone I want to sit around and listen to a ton? No, but he's definitely a legend, and without him, music wouldn't be what it is... regardless of whether I like him or not. I don't generally like rap or hip hop, doesn't mean a group like NWA isn't a legend in the field.

toymachinesh
04-07-2014, 03:34 AM
@squirrellyninja If you misread next week's DLC you won't think of Alf, but don't get it mixed up with one of the five best rappers of all time.

misdirection? because this seems to obvious


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9lg6HqJeY0

Mos Def

Def Leppard

fredyellowone
04-07-2014, 04:07 AM
You guys that reserve the term legendary for artists like The Beatles, for your narrow use of the term legendary what is it about The Beatles that qualifies them? Is it because they were hugely popular and had fantastic album sales for their time? Don't think that it was they that pushed the boundaries of music and changed rock as some suggest because they were getting just as much from other groups (that never achieved great fame) at that time as others were getting from them. Listen to something like My White Bicycle by Tomorrow, this was one of the many bands that The Beatles were paying attention to as well as many others.

My eyes hurt. Your statement couldn't be more untrue.
Yes, they pushed the boundaries of music and changed the rock as we knew it at that time, and as we know it today. First of all, The Beatles are the sole reason for the creation of two terms : "pop" and "pop culture", and all that apply to those terms, even now. The Beatles are the first band to ever use lyrics actively talking about sex. Same thing for drugs. The Beatles pioneered in many ways such as : artificial double tracking, back masking, tuned feedback, spliced audio loops, distortion, equalization, multi-tracking, overdubbing, stereo effects, phase shifting, innovative microphoning, etc etc etc.

The Beatles inspired thousands of groups and artists like U2, Nirvana, The Beach Boys, and God how many more. Almost every group in history is related to the Beatles in some way. (Including Death Metal - just listen to Helter Skelter)

As for your "they were getting just as much from other groups at that time as others were getting from them". Well, it's eqallly untrue. That's why it's such an incredible band. Most of their stuff was completely original, and the vast majority of their work was coming from within them.
The influences of the Beatles, prior to 1965 been mostly blues and Rock N Roll stuff, like Carl Perkins and Gene Vincent. After they released Rubber Soul, They forged their own sound, influenced only by Ravi Shankar and the newly discovered Sitar. After 1965, every damm group in the universe was running after the Beatles in some ways, including "Pet Sounds" of the Beach Boys, directly created after Rubber Soul. After 1965 and 1966; they didn't had to rely on tours anymore, and they didn't had to care about money anymore. The White Album, Magical Mistery Tour, Sgt Pepper Lonely Heart Club Band and Yellow Submarine all been concept albums that most groups at that time could only dream of having enough independance to achieve.

But of course, that's not enough. The Beatles created the first music video ever with Rain/Paperback writer, They changed the way people dressed, they changed the way people had their hair cut, God, I must stop, I could go all day.

DAVID2380
04-07-2014, 04:09 AM
Just throwing an example out there as a polarizing band, but would you consider Nine Inch Nails (or Trent Reznor) to be legendary?

You know, that's a good call Toy and a great example. I don't particularly like NIN's music, but I readily admit they are very influential. Another band that comes to mind is Tool.

fredyellowone
04-07-2014, 04:15 AM
You know, that's a good call Toy and a great example. I don't particularly like NIN's music, but I readily admit they are very influential. Another band that comes to mind is Tool.

If tool is a legendary group, then Korn is too. And Rage against the Machine. And Green Day, and well, almost every successful band.

toymachinesh
04-07-2014, 05:53 AM
The Beatles created the first music video ever with Rain/Paperback writer,

Actually I think this is the first music video ever ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRweyGHJ3bc

not actually serious but I think it's close

Greenbrick2
04-07-2014, 06:57 AM
I would say Green Day and Nirvana before KISS. Why? The same thing I tweeted to Gene Simmons when he complained the Nirvana doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. "Labels are still looking for the next Nirvana. They aren't looking for the next KISS." That was also the case for Green Day or The Beatles. You don't have to develop a genre or start a new one, you're influential enough if you make every new band try to copy you.

Have we really given up on speculation? Are there no more amusing guesses to make that aren't Def Leppard? :)

RokDog007
04-07-2014, 07:33 AM
Legendary Artists are much like a fart in an elevator...

as it doesn't matter how BIG, Loud or how bad it stinks.........its ALL about the reactions it invokes

whats Legendary to some may be ho hum to another......

BazzTard61
04-07-2014, 10:15 AM
lol Greenbrick ! love the tweet to Gene Simmonds, good on you!!

It's the public that choose who is legendary by their buying their music for years and years and buying tickets to their shows.

But as my old T shirt said 'Eat sh!t, 100 million flies can't be wrong"

Legendary doesnt equal good, U2, I rest my case hehe

sh1kamaru-
04-07-2014, 12:41 PM
Wow awesome news if it’s Def Leppard. I admit I love Pyromania much more than Bringing on the Heartbreak (album’s name is high n’ dry IIRC ?)

Rock of Ages and Photograph were super fun in RB3, Foolin as well, because of the arpeggios ! :)
I like the songs Die Hard the Hunter and Comin’ Under Fire, but I doubt they would make it to a pack.

[EDIT] looking at the whole thread I would suggest avoiding calling a band legendary. It’s the kind of hyperbolic marketing that fails to have an impact if it’s used too often.

DrunkWithPow3r
04-07-2014, 01:59 PM
If tool is a legendary group, then Korn is too.

Really? I have respect for others opinions and musical tastes even when they are not the same as mine, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous and uninformed statements I have ever read on the internet.

zaxcv4321
04-07-2014, 03:08 PM
This thread has gone from whimsical to sad, and now so sad that it is funny again.

I recall a similar thread in a composers forum about the word "virtuoso", and whether or not it applies only to those who revolutionize an instrument or if it can also include those that just nudge the evolution forward.

Point being, if you feel the need to defend your personal favorites or decry others, then you are spinning your wheels in some very old mud.
Try not to be so predictable.

Doogal73
04-07-2014, 03:20 PM
Def Leppard should be fun, but legendary might be a little strong lol. Not sure I would label any early 80s band as legendary. As I remember it (and yes I was there and old enough to listen to rock =P ), there were a lot of bands making pretty catchy similar sounding tunes and none of them really pushing musical boundaries. Actually it reminds me a lot of the current state of rock... It wasn't until the late 80s and especially early 90s that we started getting some push on the boundaries. I've always joked that the reason we were so full of angst in the early 90s is because we had to listen to the 1000s of variations of Once Bitten Twice Shy/Pour Some Sugar on Me/Talk Dirty to me/<insert glam-hair band hit here> on the radio and MTV all day every day for a decade.

fredyellowone
04-07-2014, 04:45 PM
Really? I have respect for others opinions and musical tastes even when they are not the same as mine, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous and uninformed statements I have ever read on the internet.

Thanks but yeah, Tool is not a legendary band by any means. Korn is not, either.

IMO to be legendary, not just great, not just awesome, you have to fill two criterias.

A) An artist, or a band must have changed the way people do and concieve music.
B) An artist or a band must have marked entire generations.

In the 1990's only a few bands fill those two criterias.

Nirvana and Radiohead.

Gold_Jim
04-07-2014, 04:49 PM
Legendary Artists are much like a fart in an elevator...

as it doesn't matter how BIG, Loud or how bad it stinks.........its ALL about the reactions it invokes

whats Legendary to some may be ho hum to another......

That was so funny, I put that on my FB page.

DAVID2380
04-07-2014, 04:51 PM
This thread has gone from whimsical to sad, and now so sad that it is funny again.

I recall a similar thread in a composers forum about the word "virtuoso", and whether or not it applies only to those who revolutionize an instrument or if it can also include those that just nudge the evolution forward.

Point being, if you feel the need to defend your personal favorites or decry others, then you are spinning your wheels in some very old mud.
Try not to be so predictable.

If you feel discussing the foundations and revolutionary bands in the history of rock music sad, than I feel bad for you. This isn't a discussion about what everyone's favorite bands is, it is a mature, objective discussion about crucial and essential musical artists and should be taken as such. I actually find it very interesting. Anyone feeling that this platform should be used as opportunity to levitate their favorite band shouldn't be part of this discussion. Having different opinions should never be taken offensively and is just a sign of insecurity.

RokDog007
04-07-2014, 05:18 PM
Def Leppard should be fun, but legendary might be a little strong lol. Not sure I would label any early 80s band as legendary. As I remember it (and yes I was there and old enough to listen to rock =P ),.

its kind of difficult to admit that a band you grew up listening too may be considered "Legendary" to some as it means one thing...........your getting old

Perhaps a band should only be considered LEGENDARY once they are inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Shame...............LoL

RokDog007
04-07-2014, 05:19 PM
Thanks but yeah, Tool is not a legendary band by any means. Korn is not, either.

IMO to be legendary, not just great, not just awesome, you have to fill two criterias.

A) An artist, or a band must have changed the way people do and concieve music.
B) An artist or a band must have marked entire generations.

In the 1990's only a few bands fill those two criterias.

Nirvana and Radiohead.

Pantera was pretty good in the 90's

flynlion
04-07-2014, 05:25 PM
Def Leppard should be fun, but legendary might be a little strong lol. Not sure I would label any early 80s band as legendary. As I remember it (and yes I was there and old enough to listen to rock =P ), there were a lot of bands making pretty catchy similar sounding tunes and none of them really pushing musical boundaries. Actually it reminds me a lot of the current state of rock... It wasn't until the late 80s and especially early 90s that we started getting some push on the boundaries. I've always joked that the reason we were so full of angst in the early 90s is because we had to listen to the 1000s of variations of Once Bitten Twice Shy/Pour Some Sugar on Me/Talk Dirty to me/<insert glam-hair band hit here> on the radio and MTV all day every day for a decade.

Seems like the early 80's is when radio stations were becoming more and more automated, with music choices being made at managment level rather than with individual DJs. I pretty much quit listening to radio during this time, I've never even turned on the radio in my car although there's a CD playing whenever I drive it.

Years ago I took a music theory class taught by Ron Carter, one of the great Jazz bass players. By his definition "legendary"
was a musician or a band who moved the entire art of music, not just an individual instrument.

Back on topic, does anyone know what this weeks DLC is gonna be?

RokDog007
04-07-2014, 05:33 PM
is ICONIC > LARGER than Legendary.....?

jgrantham7
04-07-2014, 05:39 PM
Is godlike > iconic?

http://debunktionjunction.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/clapton-is-god.png

pedietz
04-07-2014, 05:48 PM
Legendary has an element of TIME.

a Legendary artist must transcend time and be good generation after generation.

If Tool and Justin Bieber can be successful for (70s, 80s, 90, 00s, 10s) like Def Leppard, then yes, they will be Legendary.

And lets get this straight, Def Leppard was good way before hair metal.

Try listening to High N' Dry.

ghmorello
04-07-2014, 05:51 PM
French FB Page posted a hint:

It's Bob Dylan.

Doogal73
04-07-2014, 05:57 PM
its kind of difficult to admit that a band you grew up listening too may be considered "Legendary" to some as it means one thing...........your getting old

Perhaps a band should only be considered LEGENDARY once they are inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Shame...............LoL

I don't have any problems with admitting I'm old =P .. Actually I'd put several 90s bands (probably too many) in the legendary category - at least Nirvana, Pearl Jam , Pantera (even though I'm not a huge fan). And many late 60s/70s of course (the classics Zeppelin, Hendrix, The Beatles). These were all bands pushing boundaries IMO, and had sounds that came to define music of the time. Even though in some cases it was just simplistic musical combinations put together in a way no one had done before. But the 80s stuff, I never got the sense that there was a small group of bands that stood way out like I do with other decades. It just mostly all sounded very similar to me.

toymachinesh
04-07-2014, 06:14 PM
Whoops!

Marauder359
04-07-2014, 07:25 PM
In the 1990's only a few bands fill those two criterias.

Nirvana and Radiohead.

Are you joking, or just that biased toward the material you listen to? Because that's just laughably narrow. So, music didn't progress at all in the 1990s or later because of anything from the 1990s except through the lens of Nirvana and Radiohead? lolololololol

zaxcv4321
04-07-2014, 07:51 PM
If you feel discussing the foundations and revolutionary bands in the history of rock music sad, than I feel bad for you. This isn't a discussion about what everyone's favorite bands is, it is a mature, objective discussion about crucial and essential musical artists and should be taken as such.

Thank you for your sympathy. That means a lot from someone that considers the majority of these posts to be "objective" and "mature".

I would be happy to explain what objective and mature mean, but that would be crass. Wikipedia awaits you.

And thank you for adding to the comedy. Your efforts have yielded a wry smile.

as_uninvited
04-07-2014, 07:53 PM
The 90's saw the music industry have a paradigm shift away from traditional guitar centric rock based music. Hip Hop took over the landscape. The big famous bands of the 70's and 80's slowly faded away as they got older. Labels were looking for the new rap/hip-hop/electronic artist to sign. Rock musicians found the market for their music disappear. And few of them had the ability to truly standout and have a certain amount of longevity compared to rockers of other eras. the 90's imo is when rock died. There's naturally many talented artists that still put out great music and thrived, selling millions of records. But in comparison to yesteryear, it just wasn't the same.

zaxcv4321
04-07-2014, 08:08 PM
The 90's saw the music industry have a paradigm shift away from traditional guitar centric rock based music. Hip Hop took over the landscape. The big famous bands of the 70's and 80's slowly faded away as they got older. Labels were looking for the new rap/hip-hop/electronic artist to sign. Rock musicians found the market for their music disappear. And few of them had the ability to truly standout and have a certain amount of longevity compared to rockers of other eras. the 90's imo is when rock died. There's naturally many talented artists that still put out great music and thrived, selling millions of records. But in comparison to yesteryear, it just wasn't the same.

I read an article a few years back from a musicologist professor from Berkeley about the death of rock and roll, in which there is a general consensus from the community of musicologists. The gist of which was that rock music stopped evolving in the early 1990s. You could point to many steps of innovation in each decade, but progress in the last 20 years has only yielded hybridizing (which is a common sign of an artistic form reaching its end).

I am quite out of touch with modern rock music, so I can't reasonably sync with the majority opinion. I would imagine that there have been a few bands in the past 20 years that have been really innovative, but perhaps not to the point of altering the landscape of rock music as much as was seen in the 1950s to the 1990s. There was an analogy drawn with the music of the Italian Renaissance: 80-90 years of major innovation, then it peaked and died. Yes, we still enjoy music from the Italian Renaissance today, but nobody is doing anything new in that style. It was projected that people will still be enjoying <your favorite band> 100 years from now, and there will be new rock bands, but the form might have run its course.

Now here is where people jump in to defend their favorite modern band. Again, it was not my opinion: just the opinion of those that know a lot more than I.

Doogal73
04-07-2014, 08:14 PM
The 90's saw the music industry have a paradigm shift away from traditional guitar centric rock based music. Hip Hop took over the landscape. The big famous bands of the 70's and 80's slowly faded away as they got older. Labels were looking for the new rap/hip-hop/electronic artist to sign. Rock musicians found the market for their music disappear. And few of them had the ability to truly standout and have a certain amount of longevity compared to rockers of other eras. the 90's imo is when rock died. There's naturally many talented artists that still put out great music and thrived, selling millions of records. But in comparison to yesteryear, it just wasn't the same.

Wow I suddenly don't feel so old lol.

Steel_Nirvana
04-07-2014, 10:37 PM
If you feel discussing the foundations and revolutionary bands in the history of rock music sad, than I feel bad for you. This isn't a discussion about what everyone's favorite bands is, it is a mature, objective discussion about crucial and essential musical artists and should be taken as such. I actually find it very interesting. Anyone feeling that this platform should be used as opportunity to levitate their favorite band shouldn't be part of this discussion. Having different opinions should never be taken offensively and is just a sign of insecurity.

No...he's actually right--it's an argument about whose music is better pretending to be a discussion of legends. The reasoning is almost entirely backwards throughout, since most people are starting with the band, then arguing criteria to elevate their foregone conclusion. Actual reasoned discussion would proceed from agree-upon criteria to the list of bands. Not, as we have here, variations on, "It's obvious!" and, "My band is legendary and here's why."

Steel_Nirvana
04-07-2014, 10:41 PM
I read an article a few years back from a musicologist professor from Berkeley about the death of rock and roll, in which there is a general consensus from the community of musicologists. The gist of which was that rock music stopped evolving in the early 1990s. You could point to many steps of innovation in each decade, but progress in the last 20 years has only yielded hybridizing (which is a common sign of an artistic form reaching its end).

I am quite out of touch with modern rock music, so I can't reasonably sync with the majority opinion. I would imagine that there have been a few bands in the past 20 years that have been really innovative, but perhaps not to the point of altering the landscape of rock music as much as was seen in the 1950s to the 1990s. There was an analogy drawn with the music of the Italian Renaissance: 80-90 years of major innovation, then it peaked and died. Yes, we still enjoy music from the Italian Renaissance today, but nobody is doing anything new in that style. It was projected that people will still be enjoying <your favorite band> 100 years from now, and there will be new rock bands, but the form might have run its course.

Now here is where people jump in to defend their favorite modern band. Again, it was not my opinion: just the opinion of those that know a lot more than I.

This actually makes a lot of sense, since innovation is generally easier when things are new. After 50 years of evolution of a form, it's easier to break completely with the norms than innovate within them.

fredyellowone
04-08-2014, 02:34 AM
Are you joking, or just that biased toward the material you listen to? Because that's just laughably narrow. So, music didn't progress at all in the 1990s or later because of anything from the 1990s except through the lens of Nirvana and Radiohead? lolololololol

Honnestly, I will never understand why the need of laughs, name calling and cynical arguments for that kind of discussions. It's like if it wasn't possible that someone had a different opinion without being foolish or irrational.

That being said, no; I'm not biased toward the material I listen to, because mainly, I listen to almost everything. I like Nirvana quite a lot, but I'm not a fan of Radiohead.

I came up with those two bands for the reasons I told earlier.

For an artist or a band to be considered "legendary", here is the two criterias that IMO, one have to take in consideration. A Band wouldn't be considered "legendary" by filling only one of those two criterias. The two of them are mandatory.

A) An artist, or a band must have changed the way people do and concieve music.
B) An artist or a band must have marked entire generations.

So, In a heartbeat, yes; I think Nirvana and Radiohead fill those two criterias. But I'm up for discussion. Maybe Greenday would be in that group too, and some others. But not a lot.

Take for example the Spice Girls. No doubt that this group is filling criteria #2. But not #1. So in my eyes, it's not a legendary group.

Duggle-SD
04-08-2014, 04:39 AM
I don't really understand what you mean by the line "A) An artist, or a band must have changed the way people do and concieve music." Can you give an example of how Nirvana and Radiohead meet this criteria so I understand it better.

A few other examples of what I believe was influential to music in the 90's (besides Radiohead and Nirvana):

Red Hot Chili Peppers formed in the 80s but had their first commercial success in the 90s

Pearl Jam was a band of the 90s, they were a big part of what was called the grunge sound.

Smashing Pumpkins, a lot of people don't like Billy Corgan but agree that he was very influential, successful and broke molds.

Foo Fighters, seems like they're kind of a big deal too.

Trance music was developed in the 90's. It's had a lasting effect, hard to discount all of the pioneers there.

The 90's also brought us great talent from Canada, such as the best reggae artist ever. :p

VarriusTX
04-08-2014, 05:16 AM
I read an article a few years back from a musicologist professor from Berkeley about the death of rock and roll, in which there is a general consensus from the community of musicologists. The gist of which was that rock music stopped evolving in the early 1990s. You could point to many steps of innovation in each decade, but progress in the last 20 years has only yielded hybridizing (which is a common sign of an artistic form reaching its end).

I am quite out of touch with modern rock music, so I can't reasonably sync with the majority opinion. I would imagine that there have been a few bands in the past 20 years that have been really innovative, but perhaps not to the point of altering the landscape of rock music as much as was seen in the 1950s to the 1990s. There was an analogy drawn with the music of the Italian Renaissance: 80-90 years of major innovation, then it peaked and died. Yes, we still enjoy music from the Italian Renaissance today, but nobody is doing anything new in that style. It was projected that people will still be enjoying <your favorite band> 100 years from now, and there will be new rock bands, but the form might have run its course.

Now here is where people jump in to defend their favorite modern band. Again, it was not my opinion: just the opinion of those that know a lot more than I.

Wait wait wait a minute. You aren't allowed in the discussion after 5 pages of mocking everyone.

BazzTard61
04-08-2014, 06:35 AM
it's Dylan. There can't be ANY person that thinks he is not Legendary, whether you like him, or not.

VarriusTX
04-08-2014, 06:52 AM
it's Dylan. There can't be ANY person that thinks he is not Legendary, whether you like him, or not.

Did you really just open that can of worms?

DAVID2380
04-08-2014, 11:35 AM
Thank you for your sympathy. That means a lot from someone that considers the majority of these posts to be "objective" and "mature".

I would be happy to explain what objective and mature mean, but that would be crass. Wikipedia awaits you.

And thank you for adding to the comedy. Your efforts have yielded a wry smile.

I did not state that I consider the majority of these posts "objective" and "mature". I stated that this an objective mature discussion that should be taken as such and people that cannot should not be involved. You, on the other hand, were just negative about the whole subject from the start which really adds quite a bit to the mature discussion, thank you. If you feel that way, why would you post at all in this thread?

DAVID2380
04-08-2014, 11:36 AM
Wait wait wait a minute. You aren't allowed in the discussion after 5 pages of mocking everyone.

exactly

BazzTard61
04-08-2014, 11:41 AM
Did you really just open that can of worms?

Who could possibly argue that Dylan isn't a legend? seriously? he could be argued to be boring,nasaly,whiney,old, but he is a legend by any definition.

tmitch45
04-08-2014, 12:41 PM
Do we think there will be a Def Leopard 5 pack soon?

KinchBlade
04-08-2014, 01:25 PM
There's no framework that prevents this being anything other than an exchange of opinions. Which is great or whatever but unlikely to ever have a clear result. Boring stuff like:
Definition(s)
Scope
Metrics and Measurement
Evaluation of results
etc etc etc

If this thread does manage to sort these things out then it should make a very interesting research paper :D

BazzTard61
04-08-2014, 03:02 PM
i bet u majored in 'stating the bleeding obvious" lol

zaxcv4321
04-08-2014, 03:08 PM
Wait wait wait a minute. You aren't allowed in the discussion after 5 pages of mocking everyone.

Sorry, I forgot the rules. Should I retract my actual content in the discussion, or just get back to the light-hearted mocking?


I did not state that I consider the majority of these posts "objective" and "mature". I stated that this an objective mature discussion that should be taken as such and people that cannot should not be involved. You, on the other hand, were just negative about the whole subject from the start which really adds quite a bit to the mature discussion, thank you. If you feel that way, why would you post at all in this thread?

The reason why many of the past several pages are far from objective can be plainly seen in their contents: people try to apply some logic to their particular tastes in music, and use that faulty logic to support and reinforce their opinions (the essence of subjectivity). It is very common...everyone does it, and it adds little to the conversation. Hopefully you can see that there is little to be gained from this idea, even if it is conducted in a mature way.

Another apology...I am sorry if you were offended by me being crass. But I believe we can resolve the whole concept with the following: your favorite bands are legendary. Other people's favorite bands are not legendary.

KinchBlade
04-08-2014, 03:18 PM
i bet u majored in 'stating the bleeding obvious" lol

Hah - fair point. I'd like to say I majored in 'not wasting time and energy' too. But clearly that would be a lie!

Marauder359
04-08-2014, 03:37 PM
Honnestly, I will never understand why the need of laughs, name calling and cynical arguments for that kind of discussions. It's like if it wasn't possible that someone had a different opinion without being foolish or irrational.

Other opinions are possible without being foolish or irrational. To say that the 1990s produced nothing from anyone worthwhile other than Nirvana and Radiohead is foolish and irrational. Don't confuse the two... Your post basically suggests that I would accept no response without dismissing it. Ummmm, no. In fact, had your point been as clear up there as it was here, wherein you stated that those two weren't the only ones from the 1990s that could be considered legendary... The previous comment suggested no such thing, and thus, was foolish and irrational.


So, In a heartbeat, yes; I think Nirvana and Radiohead fill those two criterias. But I'm up for discussion. Maybe Greenday would be in that group too, and some others. But not a lot.

Take for example the Spice Girls. No doubt that this group is filling criteria #2. But not #1. So in my eyes, it's not a legendary group.

There you go... that made it clear that you weren't limiting it to only Radiohead and Nirvana... As such, I think you're right. The only time I thought you were wrong was when you named names and hinted that that was where the list ended... Ergo me saying you were being extremely narrow, not in your #s, but in naming 2 names and leaving it at that. Now that you suggest those two groups are merely two of the representative whole, okay.

Oh, and criteria is already plural.

DAVID2380
04-08-2014, 04:06 PM
Sorry, I forgot the rules. Should I retract my actual content in the discussion, or just get back to the light-hearted mocking?



The reason why many of the past several pages are far from objective can be plainly seen in their contents: people try to apply some logic to their particular tastes in music, and use that faulty logic to support and reinforce their opinions (the essence of subjectivity). It is very common...everyone does it, and it adds little to the conversation. Hopefully you can see that there is little to be gained from this idea, even if it is conducted in a mature way.

Another apology...I am sorry if you were offended by me being crass. But I believe we can resolve the whole concept with the following: your favorite bands are legendary. Other people's favorite bands are not legendary.

I was not offended and am not trying to be sarcastic or argumentative in the least. Sure many of the posts were not objective or mature, but many were. Isn't it subjective for anyone to decide what is and isn't faulty logic? What seems logical to one probably isn't always to another . I'm sure there are many married people that can attest to that.

I disagree that little can be gained...I've enjoyed the discussion immensely. We might not be able to come to a concrete , black and white decision on who is legendary, or foe what legendary actually refers to in the case of music, but the enjoyment is in the journey.

Your last statement is probably true to some extent, but I feel there are many that can be objective. Case in point..I very much enjoy Rise Against, Breaking Benjamin, Weezer...just for a few examples. But I would never even consider any of those bands in the discussion. The flip side is that I really don't care for the Doors, but I would admit that I would consider them legendary...

zaxcv4321
04-08-2014, 05:05 PM
Isn't it subjective for anyone to decide what is and isn't faulty logic?

Speaking as a theoretic mathematician, no: logic is not subjective at all - it is the exact opposite.
That is why it can not be applied in a discussion about what constitutes legendary music, which is a completely subjective exercise.

What would constitutes a "mature" discussion is a subjective opinion as well, which I yield to.

I am glad that you are enjoying the discussion. I am as well, but likely for a different reason.
Lets rejoice in what we have in common.

VarriusTX
04-08-2014, 05:06 PM
Sorry, I forgot the rules. Should I retract my actual content in the discussion, or just get back to the light-hearted mocking?...

Nah, I took over for you :p

DAVID2380
04-08-2014, 05:19 PM
Speaking as a theoretic mathematician, no: logic is not subjective at all - it is the exact opposite.
That is why it can not be applied in a discussion about what constitutes legendary music, which is a completely subjective exercise.

What would constitutes a "mature" discussion is a subjective opinion as well, which I yield to.

I am glad that you are enjoying the discussion. I am as well, but likely for a different reason.
Lets rejoice in what we have in common.

I would be very surprised if there were any theoretic mathematicians on these forums.....;)

zaxcv4321
04-08-2014, 05:19 PM
I would be very surprised if there were any theoretic mathematicians on these forums.....;)
There is at least one, but there are likely a good number of engineers, or people with a good foundation in mathematics.

I'll go ahead and play devil's advocate. What is objective that CAN be used to quantify "legendary" status of a musician or band?
Record sales? Concert attendance? Billboard charts? Induction in the R-n-R Hall of fame? Popularity polls? Frequency of radio station representation?

Record sales / concert attendance: I say we can disprove this as a good qualifier by example - Vanilla Ice.

Billboard charts: in the recent past, a major component of establishing billboard rank was calculated primarily by the number of units of records/tapes/CDs distributed to major retailers. Record labels would ship boxes of units to the audited retailers, and then have them shipped back to get their artist more highly represented on the carts (and thus, more sales in the end). Sounds crazy, but that's how it was done.

Rock & Roll hall of fame: inductees are decided by three people, one of which has veto power. There are some bands that will never get in, due to the subjective musical tastes of one man.

Popularity polls: who is conducting the polls and how? Who has access to the polls, or even know they exist? Not likely a good measuring tool.

Radio station representation: I don't know enough about the process of who gets played and at what frequency. Can this be a good measuring tool for legendary status?

Any other possible objective legendary qualifiers that I missed?

KinchBlade
04-08-2014, 05:23 PM
Another apology...I am sorry if you were offended by me being crass. But I believe we can resolve the whole concept with the following: your favorite bands are legendary. Other people's favorite bands are not legendary.

Lol - reminds me of one of the great lines from yes MInister:

Bernard: "It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it: I have an independent mind; you are an eccentric; he is round the twist."

And speaking of musical objectivity you'd probably have an interest in this paper (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.3.3026&rep=rep1&type=pdf)if you don't already know it. I imagine you do.

fredyellowone
04-08-2014, 05:33 PM
There you go... that made it clear that you weren't limiting it to only Radiohead and Nirvana... As such, I think you're right. The only time I thought you were wrong was when you named names and hinted that that was where the list ended... Ergo me saying you were being extremely narrow, not in your #s, but in naming 2 names and leaving it at that. Now that you suggest those two groups are merely two of the representative whole, okay.

Oh, and criteria is already plural.

I have to admit that placing those two bands at the very end of my post was a little confusing. Almost like If I was saying : "Nothing possible behind those two." I'm sorry for that. But I could have said the exact same thing, without being foolish or irrational if I was true to my logic and my arguments. I'm not saying it's the case, since I'm open to add a handful of bands in that list, but yes, It could have been very rational to think that way.

That being said, I never thought that the 1990's produced nothing wortwhile other than those two bands. Never suggested that either. This discussion is not about worthwhile groups, or famed groups, or incredible bands or awesome musicians, but about what would make a band or an individual legendary in the music department.

I will stay true to my criterias - sorry for the misspelling BTW, I try to do my best, English is not my main language - and stick with my points A) and B). That's how I judge of the whole thing, and that's why even If I'm a big fan of Pearl Jam for example, I can let that band get through my list of legendary bands.

Edit : Duggle-SD, I deleted by accident the big post I wrote to awnser you. I will try to start it anew tonight.

VarriusTX
04-08-2014, 06:07 PM
There is at least one, but there are likely a good number of engineers, or people with a good foundation in mathematics.

I'll go ahead and play devil's advocate. What is objective that CAN be used to quantify "legendary" status of a musician or band?
Record sales? Concert attendance? Billboard charts? Induction in the R-n-R Hall of fame? Popularity polls? Frequency of radio station representation?

Record sales / concert attendance: I say we can disprove this as a good qualifier by example - Vanilla Ice.

Billboard charts: in the recent past, a major component of establishing billboard rank was calculated primarily by the number of units of records/tapes/CDs distributed to major retailers. Record labels would ship boxes of units to the audited retailers, and then have them shipped back to get their artist more highly represented on the carts (and thus, more sales in the end). Sounds crazy, but that's how it was done.

Rock & Roll hall of fame: inductees are decided by three people, one of which has veto power. There are some bands that will never get in, due to the subjective musical tastes of one man.

Popularity polls: who is conducting the polls and how? Who has access to the polls, or even know they exist? Not likely a good measuring tool.

Radio station representation: I don't know enough about the process of who gets played and at what frequency. Can this be a good measuring tool for legendary status?

Any other possible objective legendary qualifiers that I missed?

Well yes, there is at least one chemical engineer, with a good foundation in math.

I think the trouble with defining "legendary" is that we will get different definitions from different people, and as you've already pointed out some definitions will be catered to include a particular band whom they really like, even if the definition is only logical (to them) because it includes said band.

I would personally dissect the fame of a particular artist into two categories: popular and legendary. Any artist could be one or the other, or both. For me, popular just means people liked them and they bought their records, attended their concerts, and listened to them on the radio. They may also eventually get into the R&R hall of fame.

Legendary is about something bigger. An artist does not have to have been popular to be legendary, i.e. my previous example Vincent Van Gogh. To me, legendary means they created something with their art that will live on for generations and generations. A hundred years from now, artist will still be influenced by them and cite their influence when discussing their work. Not many artists will fit into this category, so it probably won't be a popular definition.

Kynlore
04-08-2014, 06:09 PM
It's amazing how all these threads end up with the same result.

MAng0r3
04-08-2014, 06:25 PM
I was so naive to think that a legendary musician or group of musician would be because they influenced music in general and later generations of musicians and have been fulling arenas all their career.

I think that Dylan is a legend so as for now i no more disagree with the original post.

As for Def Leppard.....they play in Toronto with Kiss pretty soon. So which band will be the opening act? The legends or the other rock band.

DAVID2380
04-08-2014, 06:29 PM
There is at least one, but there are likely a good number of engineers, or people with a good foundation in mathematics.

I'll go ahead and play devil's advocate. What is objective that CAN be used to quantify "legendary" status of a musician or band?
Record sales? Concert attendance? Billboard charts? Induction in the R-n-R Hall of fame? Popularity polls? Frequency of radio station representation?

Record sales / concert attendance: I say we can disprove this as a good qualifier by example - Vanilla Ice.

Billboard charts: in the recent past, a major component of establishing billboard rank was calculated primarily by the number of units of records/tapes/CDs distributed to major retailers. Record labels would ship boxes of units to the audited retailers, and then have them shipped back to get their artist more highly represented on the carts (and thus, more sales in the end). Sounds crazy, but that's how it was done.

Rock & Roll hall of fame: inductees are decided by three people, one of which has veto power. There are some bands that will never get in, due to the subjective musical tastes of one man.

Popularity polls: who is conducting the polls and how? Who has access to the polls, or even know they exist? Not likely a good measuring tool.

Radio station representation: I don't know enough about the process of who gets played and at what frequency. Can this be a good measuring tool for legendary status?

Any other possible objective legendary qualifiers that I missed?
I have a very good foundation in mathematics but I guess my point was, this isn't a mathematics lab. We are all different people with different opinions so "logic" really doesn't factor in here as it should in many other areas of life.

None of those attributes would matter at all to me to determine if a band is legendary. I think the impact an artist had on music and the influence they had on other artists would be MY first criteria, but as I've stated we all would differ on these thoughts.

DAVID2380
04-08-2014, 06:35 PM
There are no absolutes here. There is no data to use to make anything a black and white "correct" answer. But that doesn't mean we all can't OBJECTIVELY discuss the subject without being insulting or irritating. I welcome other peoples opinions and ideas. I may offer them a counter argument but that doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, it means I think differently. When all is said and done that doesn't mean the subject is stupid or hopeless. it means we all should just open up our minds and accept other sides to a very liquid subject matter...and take it and enjoy it for what it is....food for thought on the history of rock music.

zaxcv4321
04-08-2014, 06:38 PM
I have a very good foundation in mathematics but I guess my point was, this isn't a mathematics lab. We are all different people with different opinions so "logic" really doesn't factor in here as it should in many other areas of life.

EXACTLY. And thus, this demonstrates precisely why this is not an objective discussion. Different opinions = subjective.


None of those attributes would matter at all to me to determine if a band is legendary. I think the impact an artist had on music and the influence they had on other artists would be MY first criteria, but as I've stated we all would differ on these thoughts.

Again, exactly. The criteria is nebulous and difficult if not impossible to qualify. Therefore, we have a subjective topic being danced around by people who are passionate about their favorite artists.

I think we can put the fallacy that this is an objective topic to rest. Lets see if we can start a new fire somewhere else.

I'll start: which guitarists would you consider a true virtuoso? (I hope you will see that this too is a subjective but fun topic that people get very passionate about, and thus the fun).


But that doesn't mean we all can't OBJECTIVELY discuss the subject without being insulting or irritating.

It may be possible to objectively discuss the subjectivity of a topic, but rather difficult to objectively discuss a topic that is purely subjective.

As to expecting internet behavior that is devoid of insults, consider the medium: that is what the internet is really here for.
It is a way for people to anonymously reach out and poke strangers with a slightly sharpened stick.

MAng0r3
04-08-2014, 06:43 PM
I'll start: which guitarists would you consider a true virtuoso? (I hope you will see that this too is a subjective but fun topic that people get very passionate about, and thus the fun).


I'll make it easy for you. Jimi Hendrix or Danny Gatton?

zaxcv4321
04-08-2014, 06:53 PM
I'll make it easy for you. Jimi Hendrix or Danny Gatton?

OOOoooh. Jimi Hendrix is a given, in that the instrument was changed forever by the few short years he had on the scene.

Great call on Danny Gatton. I am glad that others here have been graced by his influence.

Danny Gatton was a fantastic player. I do love Danny Gatton, and mourn his loss to this day.
But consider: did he change the instrument forever or did he nudge the evolution of it a bit?
He was certainly a player's player, but I doubt if there are a wealth of new, professional guitarists that would give him credit for molding what they consider the instrument to be.

The same argument can be made for SRV or even Clapton: amazing musicians that didn't necessarily reinvent the instrument, but play established forms very well. Compared to a Hendrix, Andres Segovia, Michael Hedges or Stanley Jordan, they fall short in the innovation department (but score big on popularity and influence).

So, we get to a subjective examination on what constitutes a virtuoso?
Someone that plays and instrument so extraordinarily that they virtually reinvent the instrument or form, or do we include someone who plays with a style and conviction that carries a lot of influence and popularity? Paganini, yes, but what about Issac Stern?

DAVID2380
04-08-2014, 06:53 PM
[QUOTE=dougoberle;9908097]EXACTLY. And thus, this demonstrates precisely why this is not an objective discussion. Different opinions = subjective.


Again, exactly. The criteria is nebulous and difficult if not impossible to qualify. Therefore, we have a subjective topic being danced around by people who are passionate about their favorite artists.

I think we can put the fallacy that this is an objective topic to rest. Lets see if we can start a new fire somewhere else.

I'll start: which guitarists would you consider a true virtuoso? (I hope you will see that this too is a subjective but fun topic that people get very passionate about, and thus the fun).



It may be possible to objectively discuss the subjectivity of a topic, but rather difficult to objectively discuss a topic that is purely subjective.

No you can objectively discuss any topic if the object is to support your theory instead of push your individual tastes on others....example....
objective post....I think Def Leppard is a legendary band because of their record sales, longevity and concert sales.
subjective post....I think Def Leppard is a legendary band because they rock!!!!!
they both may be right or neither may be depending on what an individual thinks.
The problem here is you want an end game. You want an either right or wrong to every opinion and that isn't going to happen...

DAVID2380
04-08-2014, 06:59 PM
Hendrix, BB King, Chuck berry

zaxcv4321
04-08-2014, 07:00 PM
The problem here is you want an end game. You want an either right or wrong to every opinion and that isn't going to happen...

This is an easy concept, and should have been put to rest. There is no end game needed, except for one: your perception of what "objectivity" means, and how it relates to opinions in this thread.

DAVID2380
04-08-2014, 07:05 PM
This is an easy concept, and should have been put to rest. There is no end game needed, except for one: your perception of what "objectivity" means, and how it relates to opinions in this thread.

Nope...i never said the subject was objective....but anything can be discussed objectively. This is where we disagree.

MAng0r3
04-08-2014, 07:16 PM
OOOoooh. Jimi Hendrix is a given, in that the instrument was changed forever by the few short years he had on the scene.

Great call on Danny Gatton. I am glad that others here have been graced by his influence.

Danny Gatton was a fantastic player. I do love Danny Gatton, and mourn his loss to this day.
But consider: did he change the instrument forever or did he nudge the evolution of it a bit?
He was certainly a player's player, but I doubt if there are a wealth of new, professional guitarists that would give him credit for molding what they consider the instrument to be.

The same argument can be made for SRV or even Clapton: amazing musicians that didn't necessarily reinvent the instrument, but play established forms very well. Compared to a Hendrix, Andres Segovia, Michael Hedges or Stanley Jordan, they fall short in the innovation department (but score big on popularity and influence).

So, we get to a subjective examination on what constitutes a virtuoso?
Someone that plays and instrument so extraordinarily that they virtually reinvent the instrument or form, or do we include someone who plays with a style and conviction that carries a lot of influence and popularity? Paganini, yes, but what about Issac Stern?

How about a virtuoso is someone who conducts a complete mastery of his instrument and musical elements and is acclaimed by other virtuosos in any musical sphere? You're a bit more going toward popularity and influence over music and musicians rather than nailing what virtuosity is about.

Still don't get why you guys get upset at subjective discussion. If you had same kind of discussion with mathematicians about a subject what would it be? Why art is so subjective? It's something taught in universities and conservatory around the world so it must be considered an important knowledge to mankind. My point being that altought anyone can appreciate music that doesn't make them musicians anyway and would give more credit to a musician's view on any subjective music subject anyway :D

So as for this whole legendary Def Leppard thing.......sorry not much musicians in the rock business or outside of it have dared calling them legendary as far as i know. I f i'm not clear enough i never read or heard any musician saying that Def Leppard had an influence on their music and that doesn't mean nobody said it and that doesn't mean either that i don't like their music.

fredyellowone
04-08-2014, 07:37 PM
As to expecting internet behavior that is devoid of insults, consider the medium: that is what the internet is really here for.
It is a way for people to anonymously reach out and poke strangers with a slightly sharpened stick.

...

Steel_Nirvana
04-08-2014, 10:29 PM
It's amazing how all these threads end up with the same result.

You misspelled "entirely predictable." :D

Duggle-SD
04-09-2014, 01:11 AM
So as for this whole legendary Def Leppard thing.......sorry not much musicians in the rock business or outside of it have dared calling them legendary as far as i know. I f i'm not clear enough i never read or heard any musician saying that Def Leppard had an influence on their music and that doesn't mean nobody said it and that doesn't mean either that i don't like their music.

Def Leppard - Followed by:
Switches
Poison
Guns N' Roses
Warrant
Steelheart
Hinder
Thunder
Skid Row
Tesla
Slaughter
White Lion
Alter Bridge
Winger
Europe
Extreme
The Darkness
Velvet Revolver
Saigon Kick
Cinderella

(source http://www.allmusic.com/artist/def-leppard-mn0000193320/related)

Also Bon Jovi - http://rockhole.bravepages.com/defjovi.html

(none of my information, was never a Leppard fan, just looking some of this up in Google)

MAng0r3
04-09-2014, 01:16 AM
Def Leppard - Followed by:
Switches
Poison
Guns N' Roses
Warrant
Steelheart
Hinder
Thunder
Skid Row
Tesla
Slaughter
White Lion
Alter Bridge
Winger
Europe
Extreme
The Darkness
Velvet Revolver
Saigon Kick
Cinderella

(source http://www.allmusic.com/artist/def-leppard-mn0000193320/related)

Also Bon Jovi - http://rockhole.bravepages.com/defjovi.html

(none of my information, was never a Leppard fan, just looking some of this up in Google)


Do you have an actual quote from any musicians in those band stating that Def Leppard was their main influence when composing or just to pick up an instrument?

The possibility that 80's band have some similarities is nothing quit shocking and is probably due to the music industry requirement at the time. As someone said it here the 80's were not that great years for rock music. I would think of The Police to be somewhat standing out as an influencial rock band. Not mentionning other related style tough.

Duggle-SD
04-09-2014, 01:35 AM
Do you have an actual quote from any musicians in those band stating that Def Leppard was their main influence when composing or just to pick up an instrument?

The possibility that 80's band have some similarities is nothing quit shocking and is probably due to the music industry requirement at the time. As someone said it here the 80's were not that great years for rock music. I would think of The Police to be somewhat standing out as an influencial rock band. Not mentionning other related style tough.

Nope, not my area of expertise, just using Google. Here's something different, Def Leppard influencing country music.

What in tarnation is going on with Def Leppard?

Last year, country superstar Tim McGraw sang with the British band on the
single "Nine Lives." Taylor Swift, the omnipresent teen sensation, sang with
the band on a "CMT Crossroads" performance in 2008, joining singer Joe Elliott
and company for versions of "Photograph" and "Pour Some Sugar on Me."

It's not that Def Leppard has traded its Union Jack motif for cowboy hats. It's
only country musicians acknowledging the pervasive influence of Def Leppard.

"There was never any intention of Def Leppard going country," guitarist Viv
Campbell says in advance of Friday's concert with Poison and Cheap Trick at the
Post-Gazette Pavilion in Burgettstown. "Nor are we influenced by it any way."

According to Campbell, Swift's affection for Def Leppard came by way of her
mother's passion for the band.

McGraw expressed interest in performing with the group after attending a Def
Leppard concert, which led to the recording of "Nine Lives." "It's basically a
Def Leppard song with a little bit of Tim McGraw," Campbell says. "We tried to
cash in on it, I'll be straightforward about it. We tried to exploit it as much
as possible. We actually serviced that song to country radio, and they sent it
right back to us. There was no way they were going to play it because it wasn't
country."

Which is kind of odd, because "Nine Lives" does have the heft and feel of a
contemporary, mainstream country tune. And some of that can be traced back to
Def Leppard's innovations on the albums "Pyromania" and "Hysteria."

"They've brought a lot of the production sensibilities of '80s rock music to
Nashville productions," Campbell says. "Modern country music has a lot of what
Def Leppard was doing with (producer) Mutt Lange from a production point of
view 20 years ago -- in terms of really big drums, really building up the sonic
landscape of the track."

source: http://defleppard.snaggledworks.com/archive/reviews/tribunereview.2009-07-09.txt

MAng0r3
04-09-2014, 01:43 AM
I gues the whole country music industry is about to get a new sound :D

I saw Black Sabbath live yesterday night. Can i say that they are legends? I'm pretty sure they are even if it's subjective to the philosophical members lurking this forum and posting when they feel they could school everyone having a nice discussion over subjective matters.

Duggle-SD
04-09-2014, 01:45 AM
Pretty certain you'd get less arguments about Black Sabbath being legendary. I saw them in the 70's when they could rock without walkers. lol

I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure that a band with the sales power of Def Leppard would have been noticed by others in the music industry. I never added to their sales and I guess you didn't either but someone had to have.

Listen to the chorus of the 1 Direction song Midnight Memories


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfRZpYuf2M4


Here's a quote for you: Megadeth copied Def Leppard sound. http://www.deflepparduk.com/2011newsnov11.html

Sleigh Bells influenced by DL http://www.amybastow.com/2012/02

Lady Gaga album inspired by DL http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/lady_gaga_album_inspired_by_def_leppard.html

Pete Willis of DL was a big influence on Dimebag Darrell - Pete Willis of Def Leppard was seen as another major influence for Darrell. In his Guitar World magazine tribute issue, Abbott was quoted as saying, "Man, that first Leppard album really jams, and their original guitarist, Pete Willis, was a great player. I was inspired by him because I was a small young dude and he was a small young dude, too—and he was out there kickin’ ***. He made me want to get out there and play. Def Leppard used the two-guitar thing much more back then than they do now."[23]
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimebag_Darrell

Ok, my wife wants my help now so I gotta quit looking up quotes, but I think we can put to rest the idea that Def Leppard had zero influence on the music industry.

MAng0r3
04-09-2014, 01:49 AM
Listen to the chorus of the 1 Direction song Midnight Memories


Quit obvious :D So they havent been totally uninfluential lol

Black_Widow9
04-09-2014, 02:18 AM
Wait. Are you still arguing about legendary?.... :p

Steel_Nirvana
04-09-2014, 02:21 AM
Wait. Are you still arguing about legendary?.... :p

Black Widow wins the thread.


http://youtu.be/IH3g-Ji3TXU

BazzTard61
04-09-2014, 04:52 AM
Listen to the chorus of the 1 Direction song Midnight Memories

.

NO I will NOT listen to 1 Direction! amazed you admit to knowing their stuff lol rotfl, you've lost all credibility. U saying DL are influential coz 1 Direction copied them?

Never has so much been written about NON DLC haha, remember? it's Dylan lol

MAng0r3
04-09-2014, 05:16 AM
Wait. Are you still arguing about legendary?.... :p

:D Nothing bad is going on around here.

Marauder359
04-09-2014, 10:22 AM
NO I will NOT listen to 1 Direction! amazed you admit to knowing their stuff lol rotfl, you've lost all credibility. U saying DL are influential coz 1 Direction copied them?

Never has so much been written about NON DLC haha, remember? it's Dylan lol

Sigh... Just as "legendary" isn't dependent on you liking the band, neither is someone's influence or lack thereof related to you liking the people who they've influenced.

In point of fact, you suggesting that someone's knowledge impairs them compared to your lack of knowledge speaks volumes.

Like them or not, and I don't, but that's neither here nor there, one direction sells millions of albums, are listened to by countless fans, and are doing a hell of a lot more with music than you... and, clearly, they were influenced by DL. But even if they suck, guess what? They're musicians, sort of, that are inspired and influenced by DL... and you don't get inspired or influenced by people you've never heard before. So, clearly DL fits the bill as far as name and music recognition. And, clearly, whether any of us like who they're influencing, or what those people are being influenced to do, if successful groups are selling albums and those albums were influenced by someone in particular, that influence means something, whether the end product for those influenced is crap or not... In fact, whether those influenced are crap is even less relevant to this discussion than whether those with the influence are crap.

Some of you just are really intent on this being a discussion about what you like or don't like. There are objective facts and realities involved here... the myth that it's all just subjective is really kind of laughable.

BazzTard61
04-09-2014, 11:01 AM
that's what i missed! welcome back

enjoy your 1D colection

Marauder359
04-09-2014, 11:57 AM
that's what i missed! welcome back

enjoy your 1D colection

If it makes it easier for you to sleep tonight to think that rather than consider that you continue to miss the point entirely, rock on.

Duggle-SD
04-09-2014, 03:46 PM
NO I will NOT listen to 1 Direction! amazed you admit to knowing their stuff lol rotfl, you've lost all credibility. U saying DL are influential coz 1 Direction copied them?


If you read any of the text that I wrote you would know that everything I put on page 16 was obtained from simple Google searches. I didn't know any of this from personal knowledge (actually, when I pulled up something about a lawsuit against 1 direction I recalled hearing about that in the news), I'm not a Def Leppard expert and haven't knowingly listened to 1 direction previously.

What I did find though was that they touched other musicians. Some of the musicians you may respect, like Dimebag Darrell, or Megadeth. What they also did was influence others across genres, which should speak volumes to you but apparently doesn't. They have had an influence on metal, rock, country music, boy bands, Lady Gaga (whatever genre she is) and others. People were saying things about using the Def Leppard sound, copying things that Mutt Lange did (he was the producer, and I've heard that name before) Yes, I am saying that DL is influential because a boy band copied them, among many other bands.

What I found very easily with a little Google searching was exactly the opposite of what some people were saying in this thread.

Greenbrick2
04-09-2014, 06:41 PM
http://bunnyears.net/rrc/Josie1.gif

You didn't hear it from me.

I didn't notice an explanation in the thread yet. How is this connected to Dylan, then?

VarriusTX
04-10-2014, 06:10 AM
I didn't notice an explanation in the thread yet. How is this connected to Dylan, then?

His explanation was it's not. It was the least legendary artist he could come up with. Explanation was a few pages back.

guitarman529
04-10-2014, 04:47 PM
Do you have an actual quote from any musicians in those band stating that Def Leppard was their main influence when composing or just to pick up an instrument?

The possibility that 80's band have some similarities is nothing quit shocking and is probably due to the music industry requirement at the time. As someone said it here the 80's were not that great years for rock music. I would think of The Police to be somewhat standing out as an influencial rock band. Not mentionning other related style tough.

To a point I agree but when Motley Crue came out in 1981 with Too Fast For Love it completely changed the 80's They came out playing hard, fast, and loud. They also were one of the first bands that pushed the 80's (which is considered the hairband era) with all the makeup to a league of its own. There live shows were out of this world. This is also the era that started some of the best and well known ballads to this day. Plus this era had some of the best guitar and crazy bass lines riffs ever heard. I think if you ask most what do you remember about the 80's music, I think most people will refer Motley Crue, Poison, Cinderella, GNR and so on. Also the scary thing is I think most of the ballads were better then the bands faster music.

As for The police they were an influence in their own right, same with the Sting, and a few others but I doubt they had more influence on that era then the hairbands.did.

jgrantham7
04-10-2014, 05:57 PM
To a point I agree but when Motley Crue came out in 1981 with Too Fast For Love it completely changed the 80's They came out playing hard, fast, and loud. They also were one of the first bands that pushed the 80's (which is consider the hairband era) with all the makeup to a league of its own. There lives shows were out of this world. This is also the era that started some of the best and well known ballads to this day. Plus this era some of the best guitar and crazy bass lines riffs ever heard. I think if you ask most what do you remember about the 80's music I think most people will refer Motley Crue, Poison, Cinderella, GNR and so on. Also the scary thing is I think most of the ballads we better then the bands faster music.


Go back a previous decade and give props to Alice Cooper.
I think all the bands listed above can credit him as a major influence.

guitarman529
04-10-2014, 08:17 PM
Go back a previous decade and give props to Alice Cooper.
I think all the bands listed above can credit him as a major influence.

Yes he did alot he deserves credit, but he started in the 70's. From what I am reading it sounds like that they were refering to bands that came out in the 80's and changed the era. I could be wrong but that is what I got out of it.