Weezer and Green Day are the defining bands of my generation...

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
And what exactly sucks about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Green Day blows. That's what sucks. Dookie was a great album and then they rereleased it under different names every two years. Repetition does not a great band make.

[peterchi]

I think Weezer is a little off.

I'd say Dave Matthews Band is a little closer. Because seriously, did you ever date a girl in high school who wasn't in love with him?

And of course there's also Eminem and Jay-Z.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course everyone knows The Blue album, but that doesn't make Weezer the defining band of your generation.

Also, I'm 25 and find myself much different than 22 year olds right now... am I in a different generation? If not, then there are much greater bands of our generation - the big bands of the late 90's... Smashing Pumpkins, Radiohead, Tool, STP, Nirvana (maybe a bit early), Pearl Jam, Metallica. Weezer is a stretch (and a half) and Green Day could maybe get some arguments. The bands of today are the current teenagers' defining bands - those crappy Sum41, Yellowcard type bands.

[/ QUOTE ]
wow i am glad i clicked on your reply PDPG cause this is almost word for word what i was going to type (band references and all).

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Weezer is a little off.

I'd say Dave Matthews Band is a little closer. Because seriously, did you ever date a girl in high school who wasn't in love with him?

And of course there's also Eminem and Jay-Z.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I forgot about DMB. My wife is upset because she's going to San Francisco this weekend and Dave's playing 4 nights straight at Red Rocks (he just added the fourth as a Katrina benefit). She's pissed that she's missing all 4 shows. I'm not nearly so distraught. I already had to sit through The Killers.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Weezer is a little off.

I'd say Dave Matthews Band is a little closer. Because seriously, did you ever date a girl in high school who wasn't in love with him?

And of course there's also Eminem and Jay-Z.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I forgot about DMB. My wife is upset because she's going to San Francisco this weekend and Dave's playing 4 nights straight at Red Rocks (he just added the fourth so he could stay wasted for the entire week and pass it off as a benefit for starving South African children who he claims are his family ). She's pissed that she's missing all 4 shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[West]

my two favorite bands...(I'm 35)

[bort411]

To clarify, I'm losely categorizing "my generation" as about 1993-2013, or approximately age 10-30. For people who were 10 in 1964, wouldn't the Beatles be considered a defining band of their generation? Anyway, I'm considering bands that have been largely around in what I consider to be my generation.

I'm picking Weezer and Green Day because they both emerged at the onset of my awareness of music and are presently more popular than ever. Truthfully, in terms of rock, I can't think of anyone more appropriate.

As to my problems with Green Day: Dookie was by far their best album, and it ain't that great. If you think it is, listen to it tonight all the way through. I'm not saying it's a bad album; it's quite good; but Dookie is far from greatness. Also, their increasing political activism is misplaced and I think in poor taste: their latest video with the soldiers in combat is just stupid with poor effects and the visuals don't relate to the music at all. It's a weak ploy to appear political. As long as we're talking about stupid Green Day concepts, let's address the "I Walk Alone" video. There's 3 of them walking, yet that line keeps getting repeated. Am I missing something? Isn't this kind of like calling your band The Lone Rangers? Is it supposed to be ironic? Back to topic: "Insomniac" was possibly the biggest musical dissapointment of my life, and I honestly feel that everything since has been worse.

As to Weezer, this thread doesn't seem to be giving them enough credit. I can confidently say that 9/10 people I know my age are familiar with a signficant portion of their catalogue, even if most haven't heard Pinkerton.

I suppose I expected too much of this band. After the Blue Album, they progressed wonderfully with Pinkerton, and then it all went to [censored]. The Green Album is awful, with Maladroit being not much better, and their latest single "Beverly Hills" makes me want to mutilate animals. Has anyone tried to place the words to "Undone" over the music of "Beverly Hills?" Notice anything? They've regressed, and I don't think it's related to commercialism at all (though they certainly have become more mainstream in recent years). I feel that they're just not very versitile or talented as a band. And that's really not an insult so much as an arguement against any level of "greatness" being associated with the band.

So to conclude: I really don't have anything against either of these bands. In fact I would probably say that they were consistently the best rock groups of my generation. The problem, and the point of this threat, is that neither is especially great.

Disclaimer: I have not seen either of these bands live, and have only heard the singles from each's latest albums, not every track.

[masse75]

Music does not "define" a generation. Stop using gay 60's speak.

[bort411]

[ QUOTE ]
Music does not "define" a generation. Stop using gay 60's speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
Music does not "define" a generation. Stop using gay 60's speak

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you misread the title of the post.