>now
They never were relevant. They were popular yeah. So were the backstreet boys
>>74138539
chumba wumba
These guys haven't been popular since the 2000s.
Completely irrelevant.
They're not gonna be making headlines any time soon.
>>74138933
you don't see them hanging around for much longer?
>>74138591
EVERYBODY
>>74138933
also, nice dubs
>>74138899
nice double dubs
>>74138539
They still play to sold out stadiums across the world, what are you talking about?
>>74138962
Nah their career is barely hanging by a rope at this point.
>>74138539
They've outlived every other grunge band, i'd say they've done pretty good for themselves.
>>74138977
>>74139355
checked
>>74139408
check mine?
Was literally watching a NEW episode of Jeopardy today and in the final answer some bitch wrote "I LOVE EDDIE VEDDER" so nah
>>74139497
how old was she
>>74138933
They've constricted their popularity like a noose
Who is this guy?
>>74139532
hulk hogan
Motherfucking Arcade Fire despite how hard they're trying to stay relevant
i hated these fuckers
>>74138539
Literally every artist that debuted over 3 years ago.
>>74140574
>Literally every artist that debuted over 3 years ago?
Huh?
If we're going by the most snobby and pretentious definition of relevant than literally this >>74140574 with maybe 5 or 6 exceptions.
>>74140653
>If we're going by the most snobby and pretentious definition of relevant
What definition is that?
>>74140673
I meant when an artist first debuts and their schtick is at its freshest since popular music generally undergoes a major change every 3-1/2 years.
>>74140737
That's taking it to the extreme because there are different definitions of relevance. Most dadrock guys didn't totally become nostalgia acts until the 90s, they were trying to stay current (with variable results).
Were RHCP only relevant in the 80s or were they relevant up to the mid-2000s when they had their last charting hits?
The average creative lifespan of a rock group/pop star/rapper is about 10 years.
>>74140574
Didn't American Idiot come out close to 15 years after Green Day's first album?
Jack White
>>74141073
It was popular, but not relevant.
>>74140796
>funk past the 70's
RHCP were never relevant
>>74141135
>It was popular, but not relevant
>>74141152
Funk was a thing from the formative James Brown/Bar-Kays days in the 60s until the end of the 80s when c-rap replaced it. People think only the 70s mattered because that's when funk got commercialized and ruined.
There's just so many
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ao2u7F_Qzg
>>74141158
See >>74140653
/mu/ is an exercise in trying to be as pretentious and contrarian as humanly possible.
I mean, if you want to stretch it to the extreme, you could claim Aerosmith and Kiss were only relevant in the mid-70s although they had many albums and hits in later years.
Relevancy is kind of like those Russian nesting dolls.
>>74141228
Usually these arguments end up turning into "Any artist I don't like is irrelevant". See >>74141152
>>74140830
Usually most artists have at most two decades in which they can be relevant before turning into dadrock. Say the Rolling Stones had the 60s-70s and Metallica had the 80s-90s.
In most cases, an artist's first couple years is when they influence the most stuff, they're new and fresh. They can still have hits in later years but usually just riding trends rather than creating them. 80s-90s Aerosmith was relevant, but not Relevant like they were in the 70s. Every band that cited them as an influence mentioned Toys in the Attic and Rocks, not Permanent Vacation.
Sam Smith
>>74140574
>>74140737
If you claim a band is only relevant 3-1/2 years, then that would mean the Rolling Stones were only relevant in the British Invasion days when it's universally agreed that their peak was the Beggars Banquet through Exile run.
>>74141389
Also, music being a young people's game hasn't always been a thing.
>>74141302
Unless it's Dancehall or Trap related I don't think the big music industry is paying attention.
>>74141422
And in the case of the Beach Boys, it would exclude Pet Sounds if we cut them off in 1965.
>>74141443
>Also, music being a young people's game hasn't always been a thing
As far as dance and love songs are concerned, those were always a young person's thing, although teenager angst did not become a subject of popular music until the 50s.
>>74141422
All I'm saying is, Pink Floyd didn't produce their best work in their first three years as a band.
>>74141504
And political songs?
>>74141567
Are also a young person's thing because you need to be naive and idealistic enough to think you can change the world and old people are ruining everything.
Muse, sadly
Still a great band with a very solid body of work from showbiz to Black holes. The resistance onward has been more and more pop with less and less effort
Still great live, see them if you can, you won't be let down
>>74141596
I don't agree with you on this. If you want to change the system, young people have to be willing to take part in it. Old people die at one point you know?
>>74139497
wut? What was the question?
Was Eddie Veddor ever a heroin addict or suicidal? Why does he seem so much more stable then every other grunge musician?
>>74138539
>implying they ever were
>>74141841
He's a stuck-up douche with retarded political beliefs, but no, he's not a junkie (does drink like a fish though) and he seems pretty stable.
>>74138977
HAVE YOU HEARD
Blink 182
>>74141631
Disagree they became pop, agree that they stopped putting in effort.
I liked 2nd Law the most of the last 3 because it seemed like they at least cared on a few of the tracks (Save Me, Panic Station).