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

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say Nirvana and Pearl Jam defined the early nineties, along with some hip hop groups that warrant mention but I don't know rap well enough to confirm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention Metallica and RATM.

As others have mentioned, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Radiohead, all much more defining than Green Day/Weezer... Noticeably absent so far (and rather deserving of mention), Oasis.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say Dave Matthews Band is a little closer.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's right son

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[HolyBejeesus]

You could do worse, 16 year olds today are being raised by 50 cent.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason Green Day won all those Grammys this year. And it ain't cuz they suck.

[/ QUOTE ]
The same could be said for why Brittney Spears, Ricky Martin, Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, and Christina Aguilara a few years ago.

[bort411]

I feel like addressing a few bands brought up:

Oasis - Their era and catalogue certainly qualify them for consideration. I just kinda thought that all of their albums suck. Bonus points given though for the VH1 behind the music featuring the band though; mostly the entire thing was subtitled as I recall.

Metallica - Their exclusion is twofold. The first reason is that this band's best studio material belongs to another generation: I'm including everything up to the black album. I think the other factor is that this generation as a whole will not look favorably on this band. The Napster issue, as well as Some Kind of Monster, is really going to taint this band.

RATM - Perhaps worthy of inclusion, but I think they're a little to heavy for mainstream. Also, NIN is probably a better choice from a similar genre.

Pearl Jam/Nirvana - I don't think these bands fall so much under my generation. Versus was 1993, as was In Utero, and this is my minimum cutoff.

All rappers mentioned - These individuals are not bands.

A quick note to Mr. Durden: Using the 2005 Grammy results to support a music arguement is counterproductive. Do you see why?

[Shajen]

[ QUOTE ]
To clarify, I'm losely categorizing "my generation" as about 1993-2013, or approximately age 10-30.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't a generation typically defined in 10 year stretches of time, and not 20? I mean, I could technically be in your definition of "my generation" but I know I'm not.

[bort411]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To clarify, I'm losely categorizing "my generation" as about 1993-2013, or approximately age 10-30.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't a generation typically defined in 10 year stretches of time, and not 20? I mean, I could technically be in your definition of "my generation" but I know I'm not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure. I know since WWII America at least has 4 general categorizations: the Baby Boomers, Generations X and Y, and the current one. Those are roughly 20 years each, give or take.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
All rappers mentioned - These individuals are not bands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But they, and other "non-bands" are the defining musical acts of your generation. That is why there are no real "defining bands" of your generation and you are having this ridiculous discussion about bands like Green Day and Weezer that have never come close to attaining the mass popularity and general influence upon popular culture generally and music more specifically that the "defining bands" of previous generations had.

[cwsiggy]

I suppose for my "generation" I'm 36, it would be U2(1979-present) but this is just a guess. For me personally it was The Cars.