Which band/artist has had the most destructive influence?

What a great question! I'd take the Black Crowes box-set, but I'd rather take a Hanoi Rocks lunch-box if given the option.

Go wild!

1. Whoever coined the phrase 'disco sucks'.
2. Whoever first thought of legal action against 'Paul's Boutique'.
3. Oasis.

The Jam
The Clash

grunge had a dismal effect on the vocal stylings of 90's and post 90's rock bands.

Yeah, I too was gonna mention the original artists who came up with the sampling lawsuits against people like De La Soul and Biz Markie. Okay, I guess it was inevitable and it's not like those singular artists can really be blamed for everything that happened, since the whole music business was bound to put a stop to rampant sampling. But imagine what would've happened if sampling had been given the chance to develop freely instead of being continuously afraid of lawsuits, so that only producers with big bucks can sample whatever they want?

Also, Aphex Twin and Squarepusher and Autechre for equating "electronic listening music" with wanky knob-twiddling and soulless prog tendencies, a route which far too many followed.

Some interesting opinions.

However, this is where I drop a would-be bombshell: to what extent are these bands "influencing" artists who would have made music you would have liked but for their existence? Can't we just live and let live? If a band wants to be a Jam knock-off, isn't that the sign that they were never gonna be a decent band? Or does the presence of such acts create a snowballing detrimentalisation of a music "scene" as others, eager for direction, flock to conform?

I think German electronic experimentalists like Air Liquide and Mike Ink and Burnt Friedman were already doing more interesting stuff than most of the British IDMers back in the early and mid-nineties, but it seems like the German scene has really gained big prominence only this decade.

(x-post)

Or does the presence of such acts create a snowballing detrimentalisation of a music "scene" as others, eager for direction, flock to conform?

That's exactly what I had in mind with Oasis, Louis, only there was a pressure to conform too, not just an attraction. There was even a horrible incident where Embrace mouthed off about being better than Oasis in NME, only to issue a statement the following week (after words with the Gallaghers) clarifying that Oasis and Embrace (and I think the Verve) were all great bands.

James Brown obv. Followed by Sex Pistols and Sugarhill Gang.

what about elvis and his pelvis? i'm sure that got a lot of girls rocking in the back seat of some car.

1. Whoever coined the phrase 'disco sucks'.
2. Whoever first thought of legal action against 'Paul's Boutique'.
3. Oasis.

All of these have had an incredibly positive effect on music.

IT IS THE NINETIES AND THERE IS TIME FOR

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/noodle_vague/geirbot.jpg

those of you who weren't disabused of your affected for the term "influence" by mark "terminator" s., please return to school and come back when yr over it

affection, even

skip spence's oar. who knew that this pleasantly-cracked eavesdropping session would result in the absolute massively crushing mediocrity of the "free-folk"/"freak-folk" "movement" ?

My Bloody Valentine

we've ended up with far too many people aiming for nothing more than sounding "whooshy"

Pavement for making people believe that indie=not singing properly

How about Grateful Dead for spawning the whole jam band craze in the 90s.

James Brown obv. Followed by Sex Pistols and Sugarhill Gang.

-- Geir Hongro, Sunday, 1 June 2008 23:25 (2 days ago)

Lemme guess you're blaming the sugarhill gang for starting rap ?

U2. Hands down.

If things continue as they are w/US comalt radio, Pearl Jam will be right up there in a couple years or so.
-- Jeff Wright, Tuesday, September 4, 2001

Bingo.

Korn are probably worth a mention too, though.

I wrote this almost exactly two years ago - "U2 are now the most important (where “important” = “influential”) band in rock history, far out-stripping The Beatles in terms of their pernicious, all-permeating stranglehold over the platonic essence of “rock” whatever that is. If you’re in a band and want a career, you have to look at the U2 blueprint: the consistency of sound, the constant hedging of bets and consolidation of victories with repetitions of formula; that peculiar strain of anthemic, everyman songwriting that constantly steps to the borderline between ecclesiastical joy and money-laundering conservatism.

Rock is big business, and there’s not enough room for error if millions of dollars and pounds and yen are staked on records shifting units. And if there’s not enough room for error, there’s not enough room for trial either. Stock values are at risk. In the 60s and 70s there were half-a-dozen major record labels and they had no idea what pop or rock were, so they took chances, they let people record mad albums and throw them at the public to see what would stick. Forty years on from Revolver there are two major labels; their marketing, PR and A&R departments “know” what the public “wants” and seek to give it them at every turn."

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/keane/under-the-iron-sea.htm

Sound, attitude, visual style, ethos, ambition, sonic approach - they're pernicious.

bonus points for anyone finding and linking to the thread dave q was upset about up there ^^^

I don't have a problem with Pearl Jam but their spawn is certainly a blight on this world. Never listened to Korn and feel that I'm better off for it.
Could be wrong I guess but it's a chance I'm willing to take.

Aren't Pearl Jam getting the blame for a lot of Nirvana's influence?

Basically, yeah. Blaming Pearl Jam for what Nirvana caused is a fantastic piece of "having your cake and eating it" schtick from old school music writers

I always prefer to blame Pearl Jam. I guess it's because I like Nirvana and just find Pearl Jam unoffensive.

I can hang with Nick's U2 shout, although in many ways I'd argue Pink Floyd have done as much to hinder the progress of experimental music as U2 have done for pop-rock. And I like (some) Pink Floyd.

I like some U2. Pink Floyd I'd agree with to an extent as well, actually.

Radiohead, anyone?

Maybe, although it isn't their fault none of their imitators have the same desire to innovate or compositional ability as them.

There's been a lot of really bad confessional singer songwriting in the wake of Joni Mitchell.

you can at least blame pearl jam for that singing style, right? did anyone ever sing like that before eddie vedder? worst. vocal. affectation. everrrrrrrrrrr

So basically, this is a list of artists who do 'straightforward' stuff really well, and a corresponding list of artists who do the same sort of stuff straightforwardly...

I always prefer to blame Pearl Jam. I guess it's because I like Nirvana and just find Pearl Jam unoffensive.

I'm not a huge Nirvana fan; never have been; have no reason to protect their bloated rep. But the worst post-grunge since is way more Vedder than Cobain. So Dom's full of shit, as usual. But I can see how Bono preceded Vedder in the pope-rock sweepstakes; U2 seems like a smart choice. (But then, so do Black Sabbath, who I love. Or N.W.A, for that matter. Hey, Simon and Garfunkel probably deserve a mention, too.)

THAR BEETLESS

Bono preceded Vedder in the pope-rock sweepstakes

And Springsteen preceded Bono, so maybe him. (But I like him. I kind of like Jim Morrison, too, but he's worth naming, at least.)

And Slayer are way up there.

There's been a lot of really bad confessional singer songwriting in the wake of Joni Mitchell.Dylan

-- kornrulez6969, Tuesday, June 3, 2008 2:40 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

you can at least blame pearl jam dylan for that singing style, right? did anyone ever sing like that before eddie vedder Dylan? worst. vocal. affectation. everrrrrrrrrrr

-- bell_labs, Tuesday, June 3, 2008 2:41 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
Pavementdylan for making people believe that indie=not singing properly

-- J@cob, Monday, June 2, 2008 7:42 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

Actually I love Bob but a lot of shit could be traced backed to him if you were inclined...

Yeah, I was just about to say the exact same thing, after giving R.E.M. and Black Flag their due. It can pretty much all be traced back to Dylan. So him.

Louis Armstrong

guns n roses

N.W.A

-- xhuxk, Tuesday, June 3, 2008 9:50 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link

whats the destructive influences of nwa? usually if i hear anybody got influenced by nwa i know im gonna be feelin it

Boy, War, The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, hell, even Zooropa -- all better albums than 95% of bands will release in their dull careers, even once.

The Lightning Seeds

Bono preceded Vedder in the pope-rock sweepstakes

And Springsteen preceded Bono, so maybe him. (But I like him. I kind of like Jim Morrison, too, but he's worth naming, at least.)

-- xhuxk, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 13:54 (5 hours ago) Link

if we're slammimg pontificating/messianic Morrisons here, then surely Van Morrison deserves some slagging as well.

Yeah, I was just about to say the exact same thing, after giving R.E.M. and Black Flag their due. It can pretty much all be traced back to Dylan. So him.

There's also a Neil Young strand within certain indie bands, that kind of querulous whine that (maybe?) Wayne Coyne first adopted.

I love Neil Young, btw.

Who started the melisma plague? Whitney Houston? Christina Aguilera?

anything pete doherty has been associated with

oh i don't know

something blandly derivative can be an offshoot from any given band, whether they be great or shit to begin with.

i'd probably prefer something vaguely modelled in the style of, say, the clash to something terrible that stems from a less inspired source.

David Gray is OK and all that and "White Ladder" was a great album.

Sadly, it helped bring James Blunt to the world....

bell_labs OTM. The correct answer is Pearl Jam.

The Lightning Seeds
???

Hall&Oats...Bob Marley

Rick Astley

definitely pearl jam.

Rick Astley

Whoever spawned the I-need-to-have-my-adenoids-removed style of whiny, nasal "punk" singing that every mediocre new punk-ish act does. Was it a Dylan carry-over? Was it John Lydon? Green Day? Not sure.

New Kids On The Block, obv.

Whiny Nasal? Not really Lydon, more Pete Shelley I reckons.

you can at least blame pearl jam for that singing style, right? did anyone ever sing like that before eddie vedder? worst. vocal. affectation. everrrrrrrrrrr

I came here to the say the same thing

Urban Dance Squad

Whoever spawned the I-need-to-have-my-adenoids-removed style of whiny, nasal "punk" singing that every mediocre new punk-ish act does. Was it a Dylan carry-over? Was it John Lydon? Green Day? Not sure.

David Bowie, Bob Marley, Eric Clapton, Kiss, Duran Duran, Guns n' Roses, the Libertines, Jools Holland.

those of you who weren't disabused of your affected for the term "influence" by mark "terminator" s., please return to school and come back when yr over it

-- J0hn D., Sunday, June 1, 2008 11:43 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Link

he never stuck around to explain!!!!

maybe you could take a punt at it.

those of you who weren't disabused of your affected for the term "influence" by mark "terminator" s., please return to school and come back when yr over it

The problem with Mark's stance is that it's at odds with the way people actually use the word -- musicians, fans, critics, anyone. It's all very well and good to say it's boring and bullshit and doesn't hold up as a way of tracing the development and interaction of ideas and modes of music-making...but oddly enough, people go on using the word, and believing that it's capable of conveying something they believe to be true.

(Also, "return to school"? C'mon, dude, you're not cross-legged on a mountaintop.)

I love The Minutemen but for whatever reason they have "inspired" some stuff I really can't stand; Sublime, RHCP, etc.

just showed up to throw another Pearl Jam record on the bonfire

ugh veddervox

and not just the vox, but the manly emotional posturing, which is part of why i give them the nod instead of nirvana, where you get this wheedling adolescent loser vibe, but the Pearl Jam lyrics combined with that weird aggrosensitive deep man voice and sustained syllables thing brought us all a lot of misery over the last 15 years. also that guitarist with his fucking bloozy bullshit riffology ugh.

oh yeah and i think you could make a valid case for SRV as well for gutting and whitewashing an entire genre, from which there may be no return.

The damage that U2 have wrought upon the rhythm sections of ambitious rock bands is absolutely fucking criminal.

I thought Metallica might have been mentioned on this thread. But the more I think about it despite being one of the most important rock bands in the world in the last 20 years I don't really hear their influence.

There are a few relatively obscure metal bands that almost clone their early sound, but not their later sound (after they got superhuge).

Am I just being deaf? Is their influence subtle but all-pervasive?

The damage that U2 have wrought upon the rhythm sections of ambitious rock bands is absolutely fucking criminal.

Music isn't about the rhythm section.

FUCK OFF

xp Hetfield's shitty vocal style has probably inspired some of the same constipated Creed-style post-post-grunge grunters that Vedder's has, actually

And oh yeah, Whitney was a good nomination above, too -- She (and Mariah) have probably spawned as least as much unbearable singing as Vedder has. (Though I prefer both of them to Vedder by a mile.)

(And I actually prefered Mariah when she was more melismatic than she is now, weirdly enough.)

New Kids On The Block

better than The Beatles

Rage Against The Machine and 311 are both responsible for our current national crisis.

-- JM, Wednesday, 5 September 2001 00:00 (6 years ago)

Huh, wonder what constituted a national crisis in those heady days? That U.S. congressman with the missing intern?

Has Dave Matthews style of singing influenced anyone?

Led Zeppelin

Their influence has been pretty destructive on my ability to appreciate Jack White's recent stuff, for sure.