So I was thinking of each decade and what band was most important to each decade. I am realizing that no bands come to mind when thinking of the 00's. Maybe you guys can help me out on that one. Also, discuss or disagree with me on the other decades too.

60's - Rolling Stones.
They were /are huge, had tons of great songs, and really defined rock and roll in the 60's. They're only rival would be the Beatles, but their limited catalog of actual rock music (not bubblegum pop) makes it the Stones for me.

70's - Led Zeppelin.
Ushered in "heavy" music.

80's - U2.
The 80's were erally a time for musical fluff, but U2 was making music that mattered.

90's - Nirvana.
I'd like to say someone else, but that one blast of "Teen Spirit" changed the radio forever. Be very thankful, those of you who don't remember radio before Nirvana.

00's- Uhhh.
Music has apprently started sucking again.

Music sucks to much for the common age.

I'd argue that The Doors had an important role in the 60's. The counter culture of the time more than the mainstream.

The seventies, I'd say KISS was quite impressive as well. But I can't say that for sure....

I'd say U2 were a huge part of the eighties. I can't think of anyone else that played as dominant a role as they did, other than maybe Michael Jackson.

90's, I'd say Nirvana was important. But they didn't last the whole decade. Then again, those that did didn't maintain their prominance. Other than maybe Nine Inch Nails & Tool. But, again, counterculture

How are NIN and Tool anymore counterculture than Nirvana?

60's-
I'll go ahead and pick the Beatles over the Stones for the 60's. Sure, Stones might be cooler, but the Beatles had a bigger impact. The boomers can all remember where they were when they first heard or saw the Beatles. Not so for the Stones.

70's-
KISS. Made the cheesy/stupid hard rock 3-minute radio song about partying and fucking popular. With their dumbness, they inspired more people to pick up a guitar. Plus, they had lunchboxes and pinball machines.

80's-
I'll say Van Halen. They began the decade as a West Coast, slightly updated version of KISS and were insanely popular. Eddie Van Halen was one of the first musician every kid knew about. (not slamming U2, but for a comparison, people didn't know who the Edge was until 1988 or so). 1984 was probably THE 80's album. They also had some of the biggest tours and live shows of the 80's. Mixed hard rock with synth and pop-- a formula that soon took over. Even Van Hagar maintained their prominence and brought more middle-of-the-road, radio-friendly hits. Lame synthy tunes that you could play to get into your girlfriend's pants, and wouldn't embarass you when you were hanging with your, um, "homies". Wasn't until 1993 that their formula began to grow stale.

90's-
I'll save jamie a post: "Hootie and the Blowfish!!!". Okay...just kidding.

I'll say U2 for this decade. Now, purists can say "booo! U2 sold out in the 90's!!" But every album and tour they did in the decade was BIG NEWS. They really didn't get big until 1988, anyways. Endless radio play, heavy MTV rotation, etc. Yes....you can act snobbish, but "Discoteque" was big news. Plus, "college radio" really expanded into the mainstream in the 90's and one of their staples was U2.

00's-
Umm... Destiny's Child?? They've been the prime example of the disposable, catchy radio-friendly song.

80's is the Clash. While U2 and Van Halen were doing Archetypical "Rock" music, the Clash were exploring different genres and influencing a whole movement.

90's I'd say Guns N Roses. Even though they were only around for the first half of the decade, Use Your Illusion and the following behemoth of a tour changed rock music.

2000's? Um... Fuck it, I don't know. Odds are the most sucessful rock band of the decade has been some shitty pop punk group like blink 182.

Though they've got major radio play, in the nineties TOOL and NIN were still seen as a bit dark for most people. NIN today maybe not so much, but The Downward Spiral was an incredible album, and probably influenced more rockers than Nirvana, but it still didn't get the average teenage girl involved. Same with TOOL.

And pop culture is aimed at 15 year old girls.

Nirvana was only counterculture to kids who wanted to seem counter culutre, but too afraid to get into real shit. Least that's how it all seems to me. Was a few years before my time. But all the people I know who were/are really into Nirvana are pretty much some of the biggest poseurs ever.

Having been there for Nirvana, and rememberring the first time I heard this on the raido, I can say they were COMPLETELY counterculture. Lightning strikes with "Teen Spirit" and *boom* thy're the biggest band in the world. Just to be clear, I have never been a Nirvana fan. I just don't think they were a good band, but they were so different than anyhting happening in the mainstream in '92, it was absolutely shocking to hear them on my radio directly after Right Said Fred. Seriously revolutionary stuff.

I could probably agree with Van Halen for the 80's and U2 for the 90's. Not for Disqotech though. I'd give them the 90's for the incredible album that was Achtung Baby.

And LFV, as much as I love the Clash, there is no way they could be seen as the band of the 80's. They had one minor hit with "Casbah", and even it was almost a sell-out attempt compared to the rest of their superior material. And U2 was far from typical rock in the 80's. In fact, you claim both U2 and Van Halen were doing archetypical rock, but their 80's music isn't even remotely similar. U2 only sounds typical now because of how many bands that have copied their sound.

1960's: The Beatles

1970's: Pink Floyd

1980's: U2

1990's: Nirvana

2000's: Coldplay


There, I said it.

Uggh. You may be right. (about the 00's, that is.)

I guess I see what your saying. I suppose you were going by what they did for modern music and I tend to go by what bands do for a more inclusive audiance.

What does that mean?

Like, The Clash did more for Punk and Post Punk music than they did for Typical Pop-Rock music.

Umm, I still don't get it...but, oh well.

(I'm sorry, sometimes I'm not good at expressing myself.)

Okay. I consider the Clash teh Band of the 80's because of what they did for the kind of music I'm into. I feel that their contributions to Punk and Post Punk music exceed the contributions of bands like U2 and Van Halen because of how much they've spawned since then, but I can understand what you're saying because U2 and Van Halen have spawned a lot more radio friendly and more well known acts, while the Clashes influence has been kind of segregated more into lesser known sub-genre's of music that aren't heard as much as the modern rock that U2 and company inspired.

I'd disagree with you on a few points there. First, Van Halen just isn't very influential. For a couple of years, every poseur guitarist wanted to be Eddie, but that quickly faded.

2, You are way underestimating The Clash's influence. For instance, U2 would certainly list the Clash as an influnce. So would Springsteen and about 1,000 other mainstream acts.

3. U2's influence can be heard in almost every single band that plays now. Mainstream or not, U2's sound has permiated everything (almost to the point that I'm sick of it.) A lot of the younger artists don't even realize that they have been influenced by U2, but their influences were influenced by U2.

Those are good points. I still pick the Clash out of personal preference, but I see what you mean, for sure.

Well, if it were my favorite bands throught the decades, it'd be completely different.

Here's one for you, out of U2, what individual member has had the most influence on modern rock? The Edge, with his kind of... fuck, how do I describe it, texture-y guitar? Bono and his charisima?

The Edge without a doubt. That delayed guitar sound is frigging everywhere now.

We are starting to hear singers emulate Bono's phrasing and such, but nowhere near the level of Edge's guitar.

That's what I thought.

Perhaps you can help me with a question. What album is "Pride (In the Name of Love)" on? That's probably my faveourite song by them, but I don't have it...

The Unforgettable Fire.

Great disc. Got a couple of other gems too, including Bad, MLK, and Promenade.

I have Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree. Should I go with Unforgettable Fire next?

Yeah, that's a good one. Considering your love for punk though, you may enjoy "Boy" more. The only discs that are really for hardcore U2 fans only would be October, Zooropa, and Pop. I think the rest would be worthwhile to almost anyone. "War" is also a classic with Sunday Bloody Sunday and New Year's Day, and the live " Under a Blood Red Sky" was my favorite for a long time.

Cool, thanks. My dad actually had the Boy Vinyl when it first came out, and has all these pictures of his vinyl collection mounted on his wall with Boy and a big poster of the cover in the center. If he wasn't such a douchebag, that would almost make him cool.

I'm not a U2 fan, but regarding "Discoteque": in May 1997, their tour for the album played to a sold-out show in Mile High Stadium. Stadium.. not the typical basketball arena. Rage Against the Machine opened the show.

Oh, no doubt U2 plays the 60,000+ seat stadiums all the time. They normally do two legs of a tour. First, they do the arenas, then they go back through for the stadiums.

I saw them in 92 at Williams Bryce Stadium in South Carolina. I think 67,000 were in attendance.

U2 is near the top of my list of bands I want to see live. Some of the live videos I've seen from them just seem amazing. And my God, thier Live Aid performance...

I saw them twice on the Acthung tour and then again on the All That You Can't leave Behind tour.

Are they as awesome as they seem?

Honestly, moreso. You realize why they each make $60 million a year, when they can do that night after night and rarely have an off night.

I agree with that. I remember watching MTV one week and it was all Whitney Houston, and the next time I turned it on it was all Seattle grunge.

THAT is an impact