ok led zepplin fits in perfectly but michael jackson is more pop than he is rock.
i dont think van halen are significant enough, at least relatively speaking when compared to the rest of the acts on the chart
this seems right, with led zep having an almost godly presence with the 18-35 demo (lots of interviews showed people talking about no matter when they were touring, everybody poured out to see them)
van halen fits because there is not other band that defined the decade's excess...metal wasnt mainstream, motley crue copied them, and they're rock.
MJ is a strong case though
>70s is Queen
>a singles band
>the most significant of the 70s
40s is Bing Crosby, Sinatra wasn't really that big until he released Songs for Young Lovers in 1954
neither of them are rock though, you should've started the chart in the 50's, OP
nah, queen was burnt out til Live Aid and their videos stalled their popularity in the US
Queen's peak was in the 70s, but they don't define that decade either, bc pink floyd and others
>70s anything other than Zeppelin
No. You could argue against MJ for the 80s - you'd probably be wrong but you could still argue against it. But you can't argue against Zeppelin for the 70s.
'10s is beiber according to your pattern thus far
'00s has gotta be like ludacris or something
'70s is zeppelin for sure and anyone who says otherwise is a faggot
'80s... i dunno...
got rid of sinatra
still no consensus for 80s, mj was pop
who is 80's?
who is 00's?
>pop icon created by executives to sing simple songs and appeal to young girls.
i see your point but that's not the comparisons we're trying to make nor is it a criteria for the kind of musician to appear on this chart. *tips fedora* though
Complain all you want, but it's Nickelback for the 2000s. You know it's true.
U2 and Bruce have an argument. Strawpoll time?
>Candidates for 80s
Guns N Roses
Any others that should be added? How 80s was Aerosmith? I don't listen to them so I don't know if they're more 70s or 80s.
The hell did he mean then? Excluding people because they aren't rock but starting the chart off with Sinatra? Fucking what? There are rock artists he could list from the 40s so I have no idea why he chose him.
>most of their songs were stolen
good one anon, so they ripped off a few poor niggers that no one else had heard of? it's art, everyone does shit like that.
do you even metal?
agreed desu. bowie was much more influential, not just in music but in fashion as well and how artists portrayed themselves
zeppelin heavily influenced all that godawful 80s buttrock shit like Van Halen and hair metal
If we are going by "most significant, not 'best' or 'most influential'" I think 80s is no doubt Michael Jackson and 70s is no doubt Led Zeppelin. Who was a more popular rock group during those decades?
And yeah, rock being the popular music died after Nirvana. There's good stuff still today, just not popular anymore.
>someone voted for Journey
poll results now invalid
Protip, rock and pop aren't mutually exclusive you mongoloid.
No matter who you vote for
Satan is objectivly correct.
The 80s mainstream is literally the least influential decade of rock music so far.
All the bands from this time that get sited were underground-not given a fuck about at all.
Surprised nobody even brought up Ozzy before this poll honestly. In hindsight he might be the closest artist to an 80s Led Zeppelin in the sense that he almost had a "godly presence" and was sort of a legend. Not sure his music was the best of the 80s though
God damnit wtf is ACDC still doing on here.
>TNT, Dirty Deeds, Highway to Hell all pre 1980
>Bon Scott dead 1980, have one more good album: Back in Black 1980
80s should be U2, they invented arena rock and being a huge faggot political philanthropist and are still huge today. The 80s was shit and thats the best it offered.
you're missing the point lad
pop is anything but an exclusive solitary genre
you can be pop-x with x being just about any genre with mainstream appeal
Michael Jackson has a large chunk of his discography that can be called pop-rock. To argue against him being the biggest act of the 80s is just asinine.
He is the biggest act of the 80s, we established that at the beginning of the thread - but he's not a rock artist in the same way Kendrick isn't a funk artist just because TPAB was heavily funk-influenced. If you try arguing MJ was the greatest "rock" act of the 80s you're literally a retard.
What? This decade has been fucking great for hip-hop, at least since 2012. The 2000s was the decade that will be, and already is, viewed as the shit era of hip-hop. There was only like 5 good albums from 2005 to 2009.
YOU'RE ALL KNOW NOTHiNG FAGGOTS
80s rock was 100% defined, owned, and operated by Jon Bon Jovi.
Put him on the board OP.
90= nin, mercury rev, metallica, Korn, tool, oasis, Marilyn manson
Sooooo, are we just doing rock now? Cause 80's should be Metallica realistically if it's rock music, but MJ if it's anything. If it's anything, it should be Eminem for the 00's. Dude sold like 120 million albums in 10 years during the download era.
Metallica started thrash metal with a few other bands, but were the most successful at it. In my opinion, they started a chain of different metal genres, and influence bands still till this day. I would put Metallica above Bon jovi in significance.
So tired of the "they stole music, they can't be good" argument. Led Zeppelin excelled in terms of arranging and performing (from a studio standpoint, I can understand complaints of them sucking live). Also even if they influenced bad music that doesn't belittle their significance.
Made a non shit version tbqhwyfam
Led Zeppelin sold almost as many studio albums than the Beatles in the US despite having released only 9 albums.
Led Zeppelin had so many drones that Gary Moore and Ozzy felt the need to write a fucking song about it.
Anything else than Led Zeppelin would be a joke for the 70s.
Sinatra isn't a rock artist in the slightest and he starts off the chart. There are dozens of rhythm and blues/honky tonk/western swing/electric blues/etc artists more of him being in the 40s slot if we're being exclusive to rock artists/influence on rock.
he's an overrated hack who managed to market himself as a master of the avant-garde but really just produced bland pop music that should have been forgotten long ago.
Make no mistake, Bowie was not a good musician but a good marketer, he's not the heir to The Beatles but the heir to the marketing department of Anheuser-Busch. The musical equivalent of a mass produced tasteless fizzy lager marketed as a quality ale. Literally the epitome of faux-music masquerading as art.
>Sinatra isn't a rock artist in the slightest and he starts off the chart
Read the fucking thread dumbass, we took him off because OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Bowie was literally an overrated hack more known for his wild appearance than his (lack of) talent at composing or perfoming. He was a trendhopper who basically ripped off other shit that was going on around him and watered it down for a mainstream audience, his few good albums were collabs with more talented musicians like Eno and Mick Ronson
I'd be hard pressed to call Sinatra a 40s singer, but he definitely can't edge out Elvis.
80s is Michael Jackson. 70s are tough. Elton John or Pink Floyd seem like the right answers for the 70s.
>we both listen to popular music too
WTF is it that i am projecting.
Also bowie was of course not an amazing musician, still he knew how to play guitar, piano, sax etc. The thing is millions of people around the world know how to play instruments, that doesnt make them better than bowie at music. The important part of it all is composing the music, thats the hard part, and that is where he was outstanding
you're projecting disingenuous reasons for listening to music.
Bowie was not a great composer, compositionally his songs are nothing special and not even particularly interesting. They're bland, samey and indistinct from other pop music of the time. If blackstar had been released by another (non famous) artist nobody would have given it the slightest interest.
>you're projecting disingenuous reasons for listening to music.
What? You are the one who literally said
>he listens to popular music
>Bowie was not a great composer, compositionally his songs are nothing special and not even particularly interesting. They're bland, samey and indistinct from other pop music of the time. If blackstar had been released by another (non famous) artist nobody would have given it the slightest interest.
Enough with the b8
For 80's? Nah, Prince or Bruce Springsteen would probably fill that criteria. Way more of a cultural touchstone than all three of those. Van Halen (and their best stuff is from the 70's) is pretty much a singles band who don't reach too far outside their comfort zone, AC/DC isn't just 80's, and Guns 'N Roses didn't do much except for Appetite and Illusion 1. If we're just talking about bands, Metallica had a better run than all three (Kill Em All, Ride The Lightning, Master of Puppets, ...And Justice For All are bona fide classics).
That's an easy argument for any act or artist, but as in terms of objectivity, everything they did (except Presence) is a classic. Nirvana also petered out by the mid-90's (for different reasons, obviously) but they're still fondly remembered as the most important of their era.
I don't like U2 but they probably were the biggest band of the '80s t.b.h.
How in the name of all that is holy was he a bad musician? You can hear his merit in tracks like Sweet Thing or Station to Station? And if not those tracks, then Life On Mars? That song is literally pop perfection.
>Life On Mars
A glacial song about as entertaining as watching paint dry.
Completely dull compared to literally any song from The Beatles from Rubber Soul onward. The same glacial rhythm continues throughout the entire song, little in the way of dynamics, the same chord progression and lyrics just repeat without any development. The accompaniment is amateurishly composed and sounds like a dollar store rip off of a Phil Spector orchestral accompaniment. Lyrics are random dogshite, trying to sound like a stream of consciousness writer but without any talent.
>>61990340 is not me
2000s and 2010s would be rappers
There are no true rockstars today. 2000s you could maaaaaaybe argue for foo fighters or coldplay or some shit but they're weren't as massive in the mainstream and well known by EVERYONE
I've listened to it, yes. It's exceedingly dull
>A Little Help From My Friends
Better than Life on Mars. It's a little comical I suppose, but it shows talent and original song writing. It's a great song, I suppose it's not a tour de force of late Bealtes song writing, but it shows the strength and talent of great pop writing that even their worst songs are still far better than most artists' best.
Green Day and Blink were 90s. MCR and SoaD are just no. Queens of the Stone Age were probably the best of that list but not nearly big enough. Nickelback was the biggest of that list but not nearly good enough. Fall Out Boy has Pete Wentz. That leaves Foo Fighters, Coldplay, and Linkin Park.
70's - BeeGee's
80's - Michael Jackson
>I've only listened to David Bowie songs i've heard on the radio: the post
David Bowie even before he died would have been one of the few artists to come close to being the favorite artist of this board. He did experimental albums very well yet he did pop albums just as well. He's edgy but not enough to label him cure level. And he just wrote a final album about dying that released 3 days before he died
save your edgy opinions for a year or two for when /mu/ is on something else.
I think Pink Floyd takes the 70's. From Dark Side of the Moon to The Wall, they pumped out nothing but critically acclaimed concept albums. Only downside is lack of single success beyond Another Brick in the Wall.
>my dad likes it
>therefore it's critically acclaimed
I wouldn't even waste one single tab of acid listening to that snore fest. How are they even rock again? Oh they have guitars. Gotcha.
Joy Division is just the British version of Nirvana you twat.
> Gloomy, handsome lead singer with all the song-writing talent writes about his anxiety, feelings of alienation, and liberal views, but everyone just pays attention to the melodies.
> Kills himself at the height of his career.
> Members of the band start a new shittier, rather generic band.
> People start claiming the appeal of the band is mainly because he killed himself.
At least pretend to have a point. Christ.
I don't know what website you've been browsing, but Bowie's been as popular on /mu/ as any other older musician. Can, Swans, Talking Heads. I mean between Ziggy Stardust and Low... dude's been talked about like Bjork is on this board for a very, very long time.
Typically edgy folks need to get their knocks in when people are sad the dude died, I guess. He's getting the same treatment now that Radiohead will get a few decades from now. "He just took what was popular around him and watered it down." Only popular on /mu/ recently. Give me a break.
what the fuck. they released one album in the 90s and it is objectively their worst
pretty sure rock here
Metallica was not that big in the 80s
Yes DS was bigger
dropped off after the early 80s