Is Green Day Irrelevant?

[Joe.]

I agree with pretty much everything people have said, I just disagree with the use of the terms relevant and irrelevant.  I think there is a big difference between relevant and popular.  Are GD popular right now?  No, they are not.  Are they relevant, yes, in the same sense that The Beatles, The Who, etc are.  They are musically significant and always will be (OK, not to the same extent as The Beatles, but still significant).  Most artists in the world would kill for 10% of the success they have had.  People will always know their name and will always know certain songs.  

Will they ever be as popular as they were during AI?  Highly unlikely.  They are aging rock stars (sorry ladies, Billie does look his age, gray hair, wrinkles, reading glasses).  Will they ever sell out arenas they way they used too?  Probably not the huge ones, but I still think they can sell out smaller ones, just like the other aging rock stars do.  The truth is, they don't ever have to put out another album again, ever, if they don't want too.  If they ever do, I think they are going to put out something that they really believe in, because there is nothing left to prove.

Someone had said something about the Foo Fighters being super popular.  I found that interesting because my kids, and their friends listen to GD (yes they do listen to them and not because I do) alot more than the listen to Foo Fighters.   They actually hate The Foo Fighters.  I don't know any teen that listens to them.  They are also aging rock stars, they are just aging rock stars that have a newer album out.  It could be that the same demographic that is going to Foo Fighters shows would go to GD.  

In my opinion, Foo Fighters appear to have more 'life' in them. Dave Grohl still seems like he could still write a kick ass album on a huge scale, Green Day don't give that impression.

I still think Billie Joe could write a great album, I just think it wouldn't have the impact a FFs record could.

[Chin for a Day]

In my opinion, Foo Fighters appear to have more 'life' in them. Dave Grohl still seems like he could still write a kick ass album on a huge scale, Green Day don't give that impression.

I still think Billie Joe could write a great album, I just think it wouldn't have the impact a FFs record could.

I agree that Billie doesn't seem too interested in writing a new album, but that does not mean that he can't, or that it would not have an impact.  I like The Foo Fighters, I just don't see them having the impact you think they do.  Where I am, they are still played on the same stations as GD and are seen as a similar band, aging rock stars.  Sonic Highways had OK critical reception and it really hasn't sold all that much.  My kids actually make me change the station when they are on.  So, the kids here have not time for them at all.  I really don't see them g as having as much of an impact as you seem to think.  The difference between The Foo Fighters and Green Day is that The Foo Fighters have had more recent hits, are touring and Dave Grohl is a shameless self promoter.   

[jengd]

Interesting topic and debate and does it matter if GD are relevant?  I work in an environment with a huge age range where a few of the young adults - 18 -22 - are rabid GD fans, charge around the country to see FOB, FFs, Papa Roach etc so obviously they are still rock fans and are desperate for a tour so they can see GD live - I have kudos as I've seen them twice!  Here in the UK the music market is very different from the US as we have fewer radio stations which are less specialist (I think) and real no country music, at least not on mainstream radio.  Sadly though, our main radio stations are chock full of what I would shite (1D, Rita Ora, Little Mix, Sam Smith, Beiber etc) but I would say are very much marketed towards 14 - 18 year olds or rock stations which are aimed at hairy bikers still living in the 70s!   FFs are a funny one, sort of rock but not really hardcore enough to please many folk, they hold a wee bit of a similar place I would say to the Stereophonics in the UK.  I think we lose sight of what an amazing career GD have had so far, not one but two iconic albums - can't think of many bands you can say that about.   Can't wait to see what they do next, will there be painful songs written in rehab?  Billie looks very content these days, will that show in the lyrics?  It's always been true, for me anyway, that mass audiences like the middle ground and don't appreciate anything that takes them away from that.  On a final note, Artic Monkeys are rubbish live, one thing you can never say about GD. 

[Robbie1039]

Relevance doesn't matter for them anymore  imo.  As long as they keep making the kind of music they want to make, it'll be all good 

[Joe.]

I agree that Billie doesn't seem too interested in writing a new album, but that does not mean that he can't, or that it would not have an impact.  I like The Foo Fighters, I just don't see them having the impact you think they do.  Where I am, they are still played on the same stations as GD and are seen as a similar band, aging rock stars.  Sonic Highways had OK critical reception and it really hasn't sold all that much.  My kids actually make me change the station when they are on.  So, the kids here have not time for them at all.  I really don't see them g as having as much of an impact as you seem to think.  The difference between The Foo Fighters and Green Day is that The Foo Fighters have had more recent hits, are touring and Dave Grohl is a shameless self promoter.   

I'm not talking about popularity. Generally FFs seem fresh and could still release a number one record.

Green Day's next album (if there ever is one) is probably going to be one for the existing fans, whereas FF still seem to be able to write a hit.

Interesting to call DG a 'shameless self promoter' always appeared modest to me, never afraid to be a rock star but there seems to be no ego.

[Bastard of 1969]

In my opinion, Foo Fighters appear to have more 'life' in them. Dave Grohl still seems like he could still write a kick ass album on a huge scale, Green Day don't give that impression.

I still think Billie Joe could write a great album, I just think it wouldn't have the impact a FFs record could.

I hardly doubt if even the FF would have power and balls to do that. Yes, I do agree that "Sonic Highways" smashed arse, but let's see what Green Day has to say about it...

[rootbeersoup]

This will tell you how bad it is.

Ok, I'm ready. Hit me with it.

About a year and a half ago, I was in a lesson at school and the teacher had the radio on when I heard they were playing BoBD (which is quite rare around me, would you believe) and I was the only person, out of 18 people, who actually knew what the song was and who it was by. And yet, if I mentioned AI or WMUWSE, then they know the song but they don't really know 21 Guns, despite how far up the mainstream top 40 it got to.

The situation is truly dire

[Guest]

Interesting topic and debate and does it matter if GD are relevant?  I work in an environment with a huge age range where a few of the young adults - 18 -22 - are rabid GD fans, charge around the country to see FOB, FFs, Papa Roach etc so obviously they are still rock fans and are desperate for a tour so they can see GD live - I have kudos as I've seen them twice!  Here in the UK the music market is very different from the US as we have fewer radio stations which are less specialist (I think) and real no country music, at least not on mainstream radio.  Sadly though, our main radio stations are chock full of what I would shite (1D, Rita Ora, Little Mix, Sam Smith, Beiber etc) but I would say are very much marketed towards 14 - 18 year olds or rock stations which are aimed at hairy bikers still living in the 70s!   FFs are a funny one, sort of rock but not really hardcore enough to please many folk, they hold a wee bit of a similar place I would say to the Stereophonics in the UK.

The Foos still do a bit of hard rock on each album (Let It Die, White Limo and The Feast and the Famine come to mind immediately as recent examples), but those songs don't tend to get as much airplay as the more mainstream rock songs like The Pretender, Walk and Something From Nothing--not to degrade any of those songs, as they're all great (Walk is my favorite Foos song and, imo, their best). But in terms of balls-out hardcore rock like Wattershed, no, they don't really go that heavy anymore and haven't for a while now.

Your take on radio over there isn't too terribly different from radio in the US, although we do have quite a few country-inspired pop acts floating around, like Taylor Swift and Carrie Underwood, that get airplay on stations running both formats. That said, the AOR format is all but dead here with the advent of PPR ratings--you'll pick up a lot of listeners searching on the dial when you play "The Happiest Days of Our Lives/Another Brick in the Wall (Part II)", but when you jump over to "Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Parts I-V)" afterwards, you lose most of that audience, as they have no clue what the song is and, for the most part, want to hear another hit. With Arbitron ratings, this could be compensated for by listeners who didn't recall the exact sequence of stations but the Wall tracks stood out, and that's the station that was written down. With PPR, there's no hiding the truth of the matter: if people aren't listening to a hit, they tend to change the station. PPR ratings have had a massive impact on the business of radio as a whole, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Even classic rock stations, once a staple of radio, are struggling these days. They reluctantly accepted '80s music into their playlists in the mid-'00s, but even the audience for that '80s music is getting into their 40's, and there's nothing there to appeal to younger demographics. One of the ongoing questions in classic rock radio is, "To grunge, or not to grunge?". Many stations have accepted Nirvana, along with other early-'90s music, into their catalog, and some are now even discussing adding things like--gasp--Dookie and the Foos' first couple of albums. Many of the '60s hits that used to be a staple of classic rock have been cycled out entirely at this point, and are now the domain of the nearly-dead oldies station. Basically, radio today is built around the hits, only the hits and nothing but the hits. Even excessive talking by a DJ can prompt a huge loss in listeners, which is why you might notice that many stations now will have DJs talk over the intro and outro of songs rather than ending the music for a longer dialogue.

So what does any of this have to do with Green Day? Simply put, there may be one last burst of relevance for them as they hit the classic rock airwaves. Classic rock radio is literally the only thing keeping Def Leppard and Journey (among others) alive these days. As weird as it would be to see a Green Day/Van Halen double bill summer tour, don't be surprised if sometime within the next ten years, that's exactly what happens.

[Chin for a Day]

I'm not talking about popularity. Generally FFs seem fresh and could still release a number one record.

Green Day's next album (if there ever is one) is probably going to be one for the existing fans, whereas FF still seem to be able to write a hit.

Interesting to call DG a 'shameless self promoter' always appeared modest to me, never afraid to be a rock star but there seems to be no ego.

I'm not talking popularity either.  I think the issue is that you are a much bigger Foo Fighter fan than I am.  I don't think Sonic Highways was very good.  Over here, they have not had a decent hit since These Days, 4 years ago.  I don't view, nor do I think they are considered that fresh here.  I don't see them able to write a hit.  It may be different in the UK.  

I doubt GD would write an album just for the existing fans.  However, if they ever come up with another album I think it will be something they are truly proud of.  There is no reason for them to release one otherwise.

Being a self-promoter has nothing to do with whether he is modest or not.  It is about getting your name out there and making people know who you are.  He is very, very good and promoting himself and the band.  He is simply a very good marketer.  That puts the band in peoples minds.  

[Guest]

Honestly Foo Fighters are pretty much toast now too. Sonic Highways was fucking terrible, there were only about 8 songs on the album and all of them sounded like rip offs of other FFs songs. They've always been a fairly average band, Wasting Light was probably the best album they've ever put out in terms of not having much filler, but pretty much none of their albums hold up to anything Green Day put out before the Trilogy. I can only explain their popularity by the viral marketing cunt that is Dave Grohl. 

Arctic Monkeys are a strange beast. I feel like as they've become less interesting they've become more popular in the USA. Their first and a half albums are honestly some of the best music I've ever heard, but after that they fell down the wormhole that is Alex Turner's ego and they're currently stuck in some sort of 60's/indie crossover nightmare. I guess people are into all of that these days, but it's a far cry from their angry disillusioned indie/pop-punk roots.

[unextraordinarygirl]

I don't think they are as relevant now as they used to be but they still draw crowds for concerts so they aren't totally irrelevant either. My nephews who are teenagers dont really know who they are.but it doesn't really faze me because I like what I like and don't care what anyone thinks.

[Guest]

Honestly Foo Fighters are pretty much toast now too. Sonic Highways was fucking terrible, there were only about 8 songs on the album and all of them sounded like rip offs of other FFs songs. They've always been a fairly average band, Wasting Light was probably the best album they've ever put out in terms of not having much filler, but pretty much none of their albums hold up to anything Green Day put out before the Trilogy. I can only explain their popularity by the viral marketing cunt that is Dave Grohl. 

I'll put it like this: at the Foos' show in Denver a couple months back, Dave invited the "old-ass" Foo Fighters to sing the first chorus of Breakout, as he always does. Mrs. Busted Drumkit and I were the only people within earshot who knew it and sang along, although we were in the lawn. What that means is that a huge portion of the audience--at least those of us on the lawn---were new enough fans that they didn't know Breakout. The Foos are alive and well, and imo, it's not just because Dave Grohl is the most likeable guy in music. It's because they're the only band filling an ages-old niche, and not only do they fill it themselves (and do it damn well), but they do their part on every tour to keep it alive by bringing along a younger support band that fits into the genre but hasn't smashed through the ceiling yet the way the Foos have.

As for Sonic Highways, eh, it wasn't really a spectacular follow-up to Wasting Light, but, I mean, what would have been? It's a solid rock album, and had it been released after ESP&G or In Your Honor instead of being released following one of the best rock albums ever, I think it'd be looked upon more fondly.

You and I really differ on the Foos v. Green Day argument. I don't think that the Foos have ever really put out a total shit album, although they have put out some total shit songs on good albums. Green Day has put out some total shit albums, but even 21CB had American Eulogy. The biggest difference between the two of them? The Foo Fighters are selling out arenas across the world as we speak. Green Day are doing nothing of note, and unless they manage to pull a huge hit record out of their ass (like the career-saving AI), they never will again. At least, not without help from Journey.

[21guns&novacaine]

It's hard for a fan to ever feel that their favorite band is outdated, but it's true. Almost no one really talks about them anymore, not even the rock and roll hall of fame, iHeart, the trilogy or even the musical was able to make them a big deal again. Sure, they're a very well known band, and you could talk to a stranger on the street and they'd say they knew a few of their songs, like the Beatles in that sense, no matter who you are or your tastes in music, you've heard at least one of their songs.  

As far as reinventing themselves, I agree with Ceadog, they really can't, unless one of their popularity stunts are killing Justin Bieber or something. They may put out a few more records, but the chances of them releasing something as monumental as Dookie or American Idiot are very slim. 

 

[Joe.]

I'm not talking popularity either.  I think the issue is that you are a much bigger Foo Fighter fan than I am.  I don't think Sonic Highways was very good.  Over here, they have not had a decent hit since These Days, 4 years ago.  I don't view, nor do I think they are considered that fresh here.  I don't see them able to write a hit.  It may be different in the UK.  

I doubt GD would write an album just for the existing fans.  However, if they ever come up with another album I think it will be something they are truly proud of.  There is no reason for them to release one otherwise.

Being a self-promoter has nothing to do with whether he is modest or not.  It is about getting your name out there and making people know who you are.  He is very, very good and promoting himself and the band.  He is simply a very good marketer.  That puts the band in peoples minds.  

I think FFs are more 'loved' in the UK. We have a culture built on rock music.

 

Chances are I'm a bigger FF fan than you indeed :D

[Chin for a Day]

This is quite an interesting conversation showing how different people view others.  The Dave Grohl "most likeable guy in show business" made me spit up my coffee.  To me he comes across as amazingly fake and self-centered.   

Yes, The Foo Fighters are touring right now.  I'm not sure how much they are selling out.  They have tickets selling on Stubhub right now for $60, so the demand can't be that huge.  If GD were touring, they might, or probably would be in the same boat.  But they are not touring, so not a valid argument.

Everyone can debate about whether the Foo Fighters have more consistent albums than GD and vice versa, but that is really just personal opinion, thus a pointless argument.  What I think cannot be argued, is that The Foo Fighters have never turned out anything as big as Dookie or AI.  

 

[Joe.]

I'll put it like this: at the Foos' show in Denver a couple months back, Dave invited the "old-ass" Foo Fighters to sing the first chorus of Breakout, as he always does. Mrs. Busted Drumkit and I were the only people within earshot who knew it and sang along, although we were in the lawn. What that means is that a huge portion of the audience--at least those of us on the lawn---were new enough fans that they didn't know Breakout. The Foos are alive and well, and imo, it's not just because Dave Grohl is the most likeable guy in music. It's because they're the only band filling an ages-old niche, and not only do they fill it themselves (and do it damn well), but they do their part on every tour to keep it alive by bringing along a younger support band that fits into the genre but hasn't smashed through the ceiling yet the way the Foos have.

As for Sonic Highways, eh, it wasn't really a spectacular follow-up to Wasting Light, but, I mean, what would have been? It's a solid rock album, and had it been released after ESP&G or In Your Honor instead of being released following one of the best rock albums ever, I think it'd be looked upon more fondly.

You and I really differ on the Foos v. Green Day argument. I don't think that the Foos have ever really put out a total shit album, although they have put out some total shit songs on good albums. Green Day has put out some total shit albums, but even 21CB had American Eulogy. The biggest difference between the two of them? The Foo Fighters are selling out arenas across the world as we speak. Green Day are doing nothing of note, and unless they manage to pull a huge hit record out of their ass (like the career-saving AI), they never will again. At least, not without help from Journey.

Preach it brother 

[Chin for a Day]

I think FFs are more 'loved' in the UK. We have a culture built on rock music.

 

Chances are I'm a bigger FF fan than you indeed

But I'm in the US, where rock began.  I would say we kind of like it here too.  

[Pat1308]

It's hard for a fan to ever feel that their favorite band is outdated, but it's true. Almost no one really talks about them anymore, not even the rock and roll hall of fame, iHeart, the trilogy or even the musical was able to make them a big deal again. Sure, they're a very well known band, and you could talk to a stranger on the street and they'd say they knew a few of their songs, like the Beatles in that sense, no matter who you are or your tastes in music, you've heard at least one of their songs.  

As far as reinventing themselves, I agree with Ceadog, they really can't, unless one of their popularity stunts are killing Justin Bieber or something. They may put out a few more records, but the chances of them releasing something as monumental as Dookie or American Idiot are very slim. 

The evil side of me is screaming "Oh ye gods, please let them do this," but on second thought, no.

But yeah, I pretty much agree with the sentiment expressed here throughout. Green Day has reached that stage where they've become 'venerable' dinosaur-like artifacts: an influential band that had managed to carve a niche, but at the same time, no longer really a sort of - how to put it? - 'active' presence. People might recognize a song or two (almost invariably something from AI or Dookie, 21CB if you're lucky), but that's pretty much it. The first Green Day boom of the mid-90s (Dookie) is long gone, and the second one (AI) is really over. Only time will tell if they could pull out a third time, and frankly, unless they do something that's really going to leave a mark in public consciousness (again) that's not going to happen.

Unfortunately I can't give an exact picture of what things are like here in Japan, since first I spend most of my time hanging out in anime/game-related circles, and to be honest, I really don't pay attention to most local pop music here either (to be honest, I think much of it is also crap anyways). I could say though that here, only folks that are really into Western pop/rock music (a foreign commodity) would really know who Green Day are, and to be honest, many of the people I actually know who are into that tend to be more into the 'newer' stuff like, y'know, Linkin Park or Avril or Justin Bieber (oh god). Those who know of Green Day tended to be the ones who like older music.

[sara_gd]

Basically, yes. Rock as a whole is dying, losing the battle to pop, rap, house, even country (which has become more like pop than bluegrass, but whatever). With a few exceptions, straightforward rock bands just don't appeal to the younger demographic anymore. Punk? Well, punk is very, very dead at this point, but Green Day left punk behind and became an arena rock band in 2004.

Green Day will probably spawn a hit single or two off of any future records, but those screaming 15-year-old girls in the pit from the 21CB tour? They'll be pushing 25 by the time GD releases another album and heads out on tour again, and there aren't any 15-year-old girls lined up to take their place like there were in 2004. Those kids' attention has been diverted to synth-pop and boy bands--the shit we tried to kill in the early '00s with bands like Green Day. We failed you. I'm sorry.

That's not to say that rock can't be revived, but it's going to take on a new form in the process. The Foo Fighters are the last warriors of "classic" rock. They prefer straightforward guitar-driven songs. There really aren't any other major bands out there like them, and they're even starting to acknowledge their "dinosaur" status by playing a handful of covers at each show. Green Day will be able to go on nostalgia tours for as long as they want to, playing the greatest hits to a crowd of devoted 40-something fans, spending 45 of the 120 minutes alloted to the set in an endless "hey-oh" parade, maybe even going as a double bill with Journey or Def Leppard if they really want to experience what it's like to be old. They might drop another album or two over time, but another Dookie or AI? Nah. That's not going to happen.

I was one of those 15 year olds at the 21st Century Breakdown tour, and many of my 15-year-old-at the time friends are no longer into them, but I know kids now that like them, I see small people wearing Green Day t-shirts, playing a song on their phone, etc. It's not like if when I was 15 many people of my own age liked Green Day or rock music, it was the time we had the Jonas Brothers, Black Eyed Peas, Lady Gaga... Maybe (maybe) the number of 15 year olds have dropped because of Green Day not being really popular lately, but I think there's still teenage potential to buy albums and go to gigs. At least from what I see where I live, they're still viewed as a teenage band by most people, that's why these opinions about them being dinosaurs in rock music, doing nostalgia tours, etc, shocked me a bit. They're not that old and they are not going to stop making music, probably their new music won't be a massive hit, but I believe there's still very good stuff to be seen and they can sell and tour just like they've done before, not in AI levels but maybe in 21stCB levels, which is fine and is nothing like a "nostalgia tour".

I agree with pretty much everything people have said, I just disagree with the use of the terms relevant and irrelevant.  I think there is a big difference between relevant and popular.  Are GD popular right now?  No, they are not.  Are they relevant, yes, in the same sense that The Beatles, The Who, etc are.  They are musically significant and always will be (OK, not to the same extent as The Beatles, but still significant).  Most artists in the world would kill for 10% of the success they have had.  People will always know their name and will always know certain songs.  

Will they ever be as popular as they were during AI?  Highly unlikely.  They are aging rock stars (sorry ladies, Billie does look his age, gray hair, wrinkles, reading glasses).  Will they ever sell out arenas they way they used too?  Probably not the huge ones, but I still think they can sell out smaller ones, just like the other aging rock stars do.  The truth is, they don't ever have to put out another album again, ever, if they don't want too.  If they ever do, I think they are going to put out something that they really believe in, because there is nothing left to prove.

Someone had said something about the Foo Fighters being super popular.  I found that interesting because my kids, and their friends listen to GD (yes they do listen to them and not because I do) alot more than the listen to Foo Fighters.   They actually hate The Foo Fighters.  I don't know any teen that listens to them.  They are also aging rock stars, they are just aging rock stars that have a newer album out.  It could be that the same demographic that is going to Foo Fighters shows would go to GD.  

Did they really use to sell that much though? I've never seen Green Day portraited as a band that sells out concerts easily (maybe I'm still amazed at Muse's ability to sell in 20 minutes the same arena that took Green Day one month to sell in 2009).
Generally, I disagree with the view that they are done being succesful (to the public eye) and they're not going to try anymore so now they can just do the music they feel like doing (this is fine, but I believe they do this already) knowing it's not going anywhere but they can tour playing old hits (if this is what you meant by saying there's nothing left to prove).  What if they had taken this approach during Nimrod/Warning? Not only because they'd be dead as a band by the time AI came, but because those songs and those tours were succesful in themselves, not as much as Dookie was, but they didn't go on milking Dookie, they used it but they went forward. 

[Joe.]

This is quite an interesting conversation showing how different people view others.  The Dave Grohl "most likeable guy in show business" made me spit up my coffee.  To me he comes across as amazingly fake and self-centered.   

Yes, The Foo Fighters are touring right now.  I'm not sure how much they are selling out.  They have tickets selling on Stubhub right now for $60, so the demand can't be that huge.  If GD were touring, they might, or probably would be in the same boat.  But they are not touring, so not a valid argument.

Everyone can debate about whether the Foo Fighters have more consistent albums than GD and vice versa, but that is really just personal opinion, thus a pointless argument.  What I think cannot be argued, is that The Foo Fighters have never turned out anything as big as Dookie or AI.  

 

I strongly disagree with the whole self centred thing, but we aren't going to agree on that.

I don't think FF have released anything as big Green Day but I think the general quality of FF is higher. Green Day have made some fantastic albums but there's a lot of filler out there too. I'm by no means saying FFs don't have filler songs but there are always fantastic songs on there.

 

Lets be honest albums like Insomniac and Warning don't really have songs that are of great musical quality. Every FF album has at least 1 fantastic piece of music

[Chin for a Day]

 

Did they really use to sell that much though? I've never seen Green Day portraited as a band that sells out concerts easily (maybe I'm still amazed at Muse's ability to sell in 20 minutes the same arena that took Green Day one month to sell in 2009).Generally, I disagree with the view that they are done being succesful (to the public eye) and they're not going to try anymore so now they can just do the music they feel like doing (this is fine, but I believe they do this already) knowing it's not going anywhere but they can tour playing old hits (if this is what you meant by saying there's nothing left to prove).  What if they had taken this approach during Nimrod/Warning? Not only because they'd be dead as a band by the time AI came, but because those songs and those tours were succesful in themselves, not as much as Dookie was, but they didn't go on milking Dookie, they used it but they went forward. 

Actually, yes, during AI they sold out very fast.  They were the biggest band in the world during those days.  

What I meant by there is nothing left to prove is that they have had an amazingly successful career and have reached a point where they don't have to do anything else, for reputation or financial reasons.  I agree with you about their approach going into AI, but they were at a very different stage of their career.  They had a huge hit in Dookie, then kind of fell by the wayside for awhile.  Then they finally had the attitude that we are just going to put out the kind of record we want, and they came out with AI and became the biggest band in the world.  Usually, most bands have to sign deals where they will put out a certain amount of music.  I'm sure they are long past their obligations.  They don't have to do another album, if they don't want too.  They will still be considered an amazingly successful band.

Now, they are in their 40's, they are at a very different stage of their career.  They will not have the same appeal to the younger crowd as they had in the past.  It happens to all big bands, they get old.  Sure, they can come out and do some great music, but the chances of them ever being the biggest band in the world again are slim.  Now, they are at the point in their career that they can do an album, if they want too.  If they want to occasionally tour, with their old hits, they can.  Or, they can do nothing ever again.  They will still maintain the reputation of being a great, successful band and as long as the guys invest properly and are not spend thrifts, they have enough money to never work again.  If they come out with another album, it will be the type of album they want to do musically, not one geared towards having big hits.    

I strongly disagree with the whole self centred thing, but we aren't going to agree on that.

I don't think FF have released anything as big Green Day but I think the general quality of FF is higher. Green Day have made some fantastic albums but there's a lot of filler out there too. I'm by no means saying FFs don't have filler songs but there are always fantastic songs on there.

 

Lets be honest albums like Insomniac and Warning don't really have songs that are of great musical quality. Every FF album has at least 1 fantastic piece of music

We are just going to have to agree to disagree because this whole post made me laugh so hard I spit up my coffee again.  

[Guest]

I think the general quality of FF is higher. Green Day have made some fantastic albums but there's a lot of filler out there too. I'm by no means saying FFs don't have filler songs but there are always fantastic songs on there.

Lets be honest albums like Insomniac and Warning don't really have songs that are of great musical quality. Every FF album has at least 1 fantastic piece of music

Best laugh I've had all week. FF are notorious for filler. It's a running joke that every album of theirs has one or two good songs and the rest would be embarrassing for a moderately talented high school band. Their greatest hits would be one of the greatest rock albums of all time, except that it took them 20 years to put out one album worth of great songs. Wasting Light and Sonic Highway are exceptions to this rule, in that about 75% of WL is good and 100% of SH is shit.

Insomniac is probably Green Day's second best album after AI and I don't think that's even a slightly controversial opinion. Warning contains some of the best music Green Day ever wrote in the form of Misery, Deadbeat Holiday, Minority, Castaway, and others. It's not my favourite album of theirs but I'd consider it a much better album than any FF's album other than Wasting Light.

Mostly, I just don't understand the FF's popularity. They're so fucking average. Why do people waste their time on such mediocrity?

[sara_gd]

Actually, yes, during AI they sold out very fast.  They were the biggest band in the world during those days.  

What I meant by there is nothing left to prove is that they have had an amazingly successful career and have reached a point where they don't have to do anything else, for reputation or financial reasons.  I agree with you about their approach going into AI, but they were at a very different stage of their career.  They had a huge hit in Dookie, then kind of fell by the wayside for awhile.  Then they finally had the attitude that we are just going to put out the kind of record we want, and they came out with AI and became the biggest band in the world.  Usually, most bands have to sign deals where they will put out a certain amount of music.  I'm sure they are long past their obligations.  They don't have to do another album, if they don't want too.  They will still be considered an amazingly successful band.

Now, they are in their 40's, they are at a very different stage of their career.  They will not have the same appeal to the younger crowd as they had in the past.  It happens to all big bands, they get old.  Sure, they can come out and do some great music, but the chances of them ever being the biggest band in the world again are slim.  Now, they are at the point in their career that they can do an album, if they want too.  If they want to occasionally tour, with their old hits, they can.  Or, they can do nothing ever again.  They will still maintain the reputation of being a great, successful band and as long as the guys invest properly and are not spend thrifts, they have enough money to never work again.  If they come out with another album, it will be the type of album they want to do musically, not one geared towards having big hits.    

Well yes they could, meaning they have the ability, they could have done that in 2006 really... There's many people who think that bands should retire after they've come to their greatest success, and there's many bands who do nostalgia tours and write the ocasional "this isn't even close as good as it used to be", indeed, Green Day could do it. But I don't see why more people seem to agree now in that it would be a reasonable thing to do right now, just because they're older as people than in 2006/2011? I personally don't think they're at that point of their careers at the moment. As I said before, they're not that old, I think they still have potential, I think they still have many fans and can get more with new music (old and young, it's actually quite shocking to me to hear some of your opinions saying that mostly people in their 40s will go to gigs in a few years time, I smile each time I see an old fan because it proves to my 15-year-old-back then friends that they're not just a teenage band), and all in all, I think they could go through another not-as-succesful era without having to become an dinosaur old hits band. 
Is there really no one who thinks this too?  

[Chin for a Day]

Well yes they could, meaning they have the ability, they could have done that in 2006 really... There's many people who think that bands should retire after they've come to their greatest success, and there's many bands who do nostalgia tours and write the ocasional "this isn't even close as good as it used to be", indeed, Green Day could do it. But I don't see why more people seem to agree now in that it would be a reasonable thing to do right now, just because they're older as people than in 2006/2011? I personally don't think they're at that point of their careers at the moment. As I said before, they're not that old, I think they still have potential, I think they still have many fans (old and young, it's actually quite shocking to me to hear some of your opinions saying that mostly people in their 40s will go to gigs in a few years time, I smile each time I see an old fan because it proves to my 15-year-old-back then friends that they're not just a teenage band), and all in all, I think they could go through another not-as-succesful era without having to become an dinosaur old hits band. 

You misunderstood me.  I am not saying they should "retire", I'm saying they could because they have a reputation that will not diminish if they don't do anything again.  Also, unless they are awful with money, they financially don't have to do anything.  I'm also not saying that what they would turn out will not be good.  I'm saying that I think what they turn out will be very good because they don't have to try for hits, they can make the kind of music they want too.  When a band is younger, and not as established or successful as GD, the record companies put alot of pressure on them to come up with hits.  They don't have that pressure on them anymore.  

Also, I most definitely did not say that only people in their 40's would go to their concerts, I'm not sure where you got that from.  However, as bands, actors, artists get older, they don't appeal to younger audiences as much.  That is a fact.  People tend to relate to people closer to their own age.  I don't think anyone on this site would go nuts over Sean Connery right now, ,but my mother loved him, he was her demographic.  Where someone like Evan Peters did not appeal to her.

And, they are older.  There is no way in hell, they can keep up the same pace they did 20 years ago.  It is a fact of life, it is a fact of aging.     

[WhiteTim]

it sure is, I don't believe in music which is handed to a bunch of marketable puppets to make money for some suits at a record label. I believe in artists that can write, record and perform their own music and make their own choices.

except Swift and Ed write their own music and perform their own music

 

all music artists in all fields music is handed to the suits and labels have the final say so 

 

your argument against Swift and Ed has zero merit