Green Day vs Linkin Park vs Foo Fighters.. Who is it??

[Harry Potter.]

Just now, JJ1964 said:

I truly wish I had negative rep for this.  He makes me want to puke

How? Of all the recent things he did he's like the nicest guy in rock right now.

[WhiteTim]

3 minutes ago, Harry Potter. said:

How? Of all the recent things he did he's like the nicest guy in rock right now.

But the music he's been making for a long time has been average yes he's nice guy but does that really matter when it comes to the quality of the music?

[Harry Potter.]

7 minutes ago, WhiteTim said:

But the music he's been making for a long time has been average yes he's nice guy but does that really matter when it comes to the quality of the music?

I like their music although I do see how it's not influential at all or generally acclaimed. However, his behaviour did add a lot to the relevance of the Foo Fighters. A lot of people might disagree, but for the last few months I haven't seen anything related to Green Day in the news, Linkin Park has lost their touch completely, whereas I constantly heard about the Foo Fighters selling out arenas, Grohl getting injured on stage and still completing their set, them releasing a free EP, etc. Because of him being such a nice guy, the whole band has really gotten a lot of media attention. Similarly, quite a few people I know are now interested in the Foo Fighters, and yet I haven't heard about Green Day from anyone in a long time. I won't even mention Linkin Park.

And just to make it clear, I'm not talking about the quality of their music, just who is the considered the biggest band right now since that's what Justin originally asked about.

[WhiteTim]

To be fair no one can say one band alone is more relevant or more influencial or dominated the genre as every band that's been listed from GD to Beatles to Nirvana to etc has made their mark as far as influences...

1 minute ago, Harry Potter. said:

I like their music although I do see how it's not influential at all or generally acclaimed. However, his behaviour did add a lot to the relevance of the Foo Fighters. A lot of people might disagree, but for the last few months I haven't seen anything related to Green Day in the news, Linkin Park has lost their touch completely, whereas I constantly heard about the Foo Fighters selling out arenas, Grohl getting injured on stage and still completing their set, them releasing a free EP, etc. Because of him being such a nice guy, the whole band has really gotten a lot of media attention. Similarly, quite a few people I know are now interested in the Foo Fighters, and yet I haven't heard about Green Day from anyone in a long time. I won't even mention Linkin Park.

Tbf LP is in middle of making an album and they're usually pretty quiet during that time unless you're a member of their fan club they usually mail out a weekly update from studio email you usually won't see them in press or doing a lot of shows until the album is finished

and seems this time GD is being more private during this album recording where as for 21st and trilogy they were doing shows still were doing interviews during recording process etc ofncourse they aren't as big as they used to be that plays a small factor as well 

[Chin for a Day]

12 minutes ago, Harry Potter. said:

How? Of all the recent things he did he's like the nicest guy in rock right now.

As Tim said, his music is so mediocre and he is treated like he is a god for being so damn mediocre.  Also, in my experience, people that appear so nice are often just the opposite.  We are all told how nice he is, it is shoved in our face.  If he really was that nice we wouldn't have to be told that he is.  

[Siddharth_471]

1 hour ago, unextraordinarygirl said:

✋ High five for all the awesome bands you just named in your post! ? I like most of those.

✋ When I first got into GD, for me music meant only Green Day! But due to their recent hiatus I got into many bands.

[Justin1]

42 minutes ago, WhiteTim said:

yep nirvana has no influence at all they didn't change radio stations at all oh wait a sec they did SLTS demand was so big it forced country and jazz and even oldies stations to play it GD Foo and LP has never done that 

they have only spun off thousands of copycat bands 

yes 3 albums but 1 of those 3 is widely considered to be one of the top ten most influencial albums of all time but you're right they have no influencial albums at all... 

 

I never said Nirvana wasn't influential.. I think anyone who would say that is a moron lol. If anything, they were probably the most influential band of the 90's. I'm just trying to say they didn't have the longevity to be the 'biggest' band of our generation and not enough material, that's all.

[Chin for a Day]

1 minute ago, Justin1 said:

I never said Nirvana wasn't influential.. I think anyone who would say that is a moron lol. If anything, they were probably the most influential band of the 90's. I'm just trying to say they didn't have the longevity to be the 'biggest' band of our generation and not enough material, that's all.

Actually, you did say that to one of my posts.  They were one of the most influential bands ever, it doesn't matter how much material they have.  What matters is what they did with that material.  I despise the Sex Pistols, but they were an influential band and they had one album.  

[WhiteTim]

2 minutes ago, Justin1 said:

I never said Nirvana wasn't influential.. I think anyone who would say that is a moron lol. If anything, they were probably the most influential band of the 90's. I'm just trying to say they didn't have the longevity to be the 'biggest' band of our generation and not enough material, that's all.

For the 90's they were it took until early 2000's for all the Nirvana knock off bands fall off 

not enough material isn't an excuse Biggie is considered to be one of the greatest rappers of all time and influenced thousands and he only had 2 albums 

[Justin1]

3 minutes ago, WhiteTim said:

For the 90's they were it took until early 2000's for all the Nirvana knock off bands fall off 

not enough material isn't an excuse Biggie is considered to be one of the greatest rappers of all time and influenced thousands and he only had 2 albums 

For me personally, staying power and the ability to draw large crowds all over the world for years would make you a 'bigger' band than how influential you are, but how influential you are is obviously important too.

Green Day and Nirvana came out around the same time and who knows where Nirvana would be right now if they were still around? They could be playing clubs and making records that don't even chart, or maybe would have broken up all together.

Green Day, Linkin Park and The Foo's are still making Great music and haven't seem to have lost their passion.. And you know any album they make will chart in the top five in at least 10-20 countries accriss the world and they've established themselves to still draw large crowds anywhere, regardless of they keep making hit records or not.

 

[WhiteTim]

1 minute ago, Justin1 said:

For me personally, staying power and the ability to draw large crowds all over the world for years would make you a 'bigger' band than how influential you are, but how influential you are is obviously important too.

Green Day and Nirvana came out around the same time and who knows where Nirvana would be right now if they were still around? They could be playing clubs and making records that don't even chart, or maybe would have broken up all together.

Green Day, Linkin Park and The Foo's are still making Great music and haven't seem to have lost their passion.. And you know any album they make will chart in the top five in at least 10-20 countries accriss the world and they've established themselves to still draw large crowds anywhere, regardless of they keep making hit records or not.

 

But shows are a different breed you can't use concerts as a main factor case in point  Vanilla Ice just last year sold over 3,000 tickets at a venue where I am same with Bryan Adams etc 

 

[Justin1]

2 minutes ago, WhiteTim said:

But shows are a different breed you can't use concerts as a main factor case in point  Vanilla Ice just last year sold over 3,000 tickets at a venue where I am same with Bryan Adams etc 

 

I wouldn't say crowd sizes are a big factor itself, but overall longevity and the amount of material you have. I think that is a more important factor to determine how big a band is then how influential they are, but thats just my take. I'm sure a lot of people would say how influential a band is, is more important.. Just hard to say with Nirvana because they were only around for 4-5 years.

[Joe.]

2 hours ago, JJ1964 said:

As Tim said, his music is so mediocre and he is treated like he is a god for being so damn mediocre.  Also, in my experience, people that appear so nice are often just the opposite.  We are all told how nice he is, it is shoved in our face.  If he really was that nice we wouldn't have to be told that he is.  

The thing with Foos is songs like Everlong and The Pretender are (in my opinion) great songs, the problem is these are on albums with copious amounts of average music. One By One is a perfect example of this.

The standard live Foo Fighters set is (again in my humble opinion) full of decent rock songs, but the average songs that fill albums is why they won't go down in history

1 hour ago, Justin1 said:

I wouldn't say crowd sizes are a big factor itself, but overall longevity and the amount of material you have. I think that is a more important factor to determine how big a band is then how influential they are, but thats just my take. I'm sure a lot of people would say how influential a band is, is more important.. Just hard to say with Nirvana because they were only around for 4-5 years.

What a stupid thing to say, by that logic nirvana are nowhere near as good as most of the bands around

[Justin1]

21 minutes ago, RustyJoe said:

The thing with Foos is songs like Everlong and The Pretender are (in my opinion) great songs, the problem is these are on albums with copious amounts of average music. One By One is a perfect example of this.

The standard live Foo Fighters set is (again in my humble opinion) full of decent rock songs, but the average songs that fill albums is why they won't go down in history

What a stupid thing to say, by that logic nirvana are nowhere near as good as most of the bands around

I'm not saying anything about good or not good.. Obviously Nirvana was one of the best rock bands of all time. I'm just saying that the combination of large crowds and record sales with Longevity and lots of material is a more important factor (When determining the biggest band of a generation) than a majorly influential band with 3 albums.. But it's just my opinion.

[Chin for a Day]

11 minutes ago, Justin1 said:

I'm not saying anything about good or not good.. Obviously Nirvana was one of the best rock bands of all time. I'm just saying that the combination of large crowds and record sales with Longevity and lots of material is a more important factor (When determining the biggest band of a generation) than a majorly influential band with 3 albums.. But it's just my opinion.

Well by that metric I say Bon Jovi is the biggest band of all time.

[Justin1]

13 minutes ago, JJ1964 said:

Well by that metric I say Bon Jovi is the biggest band of all time.

By that metric alone, probably.. But they've had a lot of negative drama in their career, and I wouldn't say they were highly influential either. I think the biggest band of a generation would have to have a good amount of all of the factors, if you get my drift lol.

[Chin for a Day]

34 minutes ago, Justin1 said:

By that metric alone, probably.. But they've had a lot of negative drama in their career, and I wouldn't say they were highly influential either. I think the biggest band of a generation would have to have a good amount of all of the factors, if you get my drift lol.

Yes, but you only seem to want to listen to factors when they support your opinion.

[Eric]

4 hours ago, Harry Potter. said:

Dave Grohl > everyone else

mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Trotsky]

They all follow the same pattern. Green Day and Foo Fighters went from good to "meh." Linkin Park went from good to awful.

[Justin1]

22 minutes ago, Trotsky said:

They all follow the same pattern. Green Day and Foo Fighters went from good to "meh." Linkin Park went from good to awful.

Linkin Park just loves to experiment and make each album different.. I admire the bravery in that, as it usual turns off the generic, thoughtless fans

I see Green Day and Foo Fighters progressing with good ideas for albums, maybe not so much musically, but they are creative! I totally loved the trilogy and the idea they had.. No other bands today even come close in the singles world we have now, and it's kind of sad for the younger music fans.

 

 

 

[Alan86]

Well from the 90's, Love them or hate them, Oasis were as big as any band. There first 2 albums were absolutely amazing and the influence they've had on bands is massive. But I don't think you can measure to see which of any of these bands has been the most influential. There are so many different factors you have to look at and it'll all come back to personal preference. I love Green Day but every single band that has claimed to be influenced by them sounds like complete shit to me  so I would question has their influence been actually any good for music?? 

[Harry Potter.]

On 4/13/2016 at 0:18 AM, Justin1 said:

Linkin Park just loves to experiment and make each album different.. I admire the bravery in that, as it usual turns off the generic, thoughtless fans

The problem is that all of their experimentations are still happening within fairly generic boundaries.  But then again, that applies for all three bands discussed here.

[Justin1]

3 hours ago, Harry Potter. said:

The problem is that all of their experimentations are still happening within fairly generic boundaries.  But then again, that applies for all three bands discussed here.

I guess I see your point. I think Green Day and Foo Fighters stick to what works and have their own sound for the most part, which I can understand for sure. However, if you only listen to LP Hybrid Theory and then A Thousand Suns (One of my top 5 albums) you could barely tell it's the same band.

[LisaBJA]

well i really like lp and green day, but for me its def green day

[CocaColaX]

On 13/04/2016 at 7:24 AM, Hermione said:

Over here Linkin Park is nothing compared to Green Day, no one's cared about them since their first couple of albums as far as I know, they were just another early 2000s nu metal band.

How is Green Day's fan base born 1982-2001? They've been around since 1989 and became huge in 1994, more people in their original fan base were born in the 70s than the few children born in the 80s. And their last album to be really huge, American Idiot, came out when people born in 2001 were 3 years old. I don't really see how they're comparable to a band that released their first album in 2000 and is a different genre.

The Foos could be comparable in terms of popularity but again they're a very different band. All three started at different times, are popular or liked for different reasons and to different degrees, and play different kinds of music. Don't see why these three in particular would be grouped together and compared.

I would agree about Linikin Park not being that big here.  I would say U2 and Muse, and maybe even Cold Play (yeuch) as well as Green Day, are perceived to be the biggest here!  Not a big fan of Dave Grohl's voice either (and I've always thought that the video for The Pretender was a bit of a ripnoff of American Idiot vid, so that kinda pisses me off), or Bono's for that matter, but as U2 have been around since the 70's and haven't broken up, they probably would be "the biggest" in my opinion, or maybe AC/DC, who I don't think have been mentioned (but I could be wrong here).