gvox
Ghost of Love
Ps: Wings were never cool. Hell no.
My experience with teenagers, while already admittedly anecdotal, is just a tad wider and further reaching than which rock chic tshirts the cool kids seem to favor from one week to the next.
Ps: Wings were never cool. Hell no.
Uh, yeah, me too, as I work in a high school. And I would say that your cynicism in this regard about people only wearing band t-shirts to project a certain image is unwarranted.
Yes and this is the most important point in any kind of conversation about what band is "bigger." I have seen many, many pieces of Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd apparel around Chicago but only once a U2 shirt - and that shirt was for Boy. But in general in these types of conversations I think people tend to project their own tastes onto wider audiences, which is probably the reason I would say Led Zeppelin are more popular among teens even if that's not the case.
Being that I was a teenager just a few years ago, I can tell you Led Zeppelin is more popular than U2.
You can buy "vintage" looking Zeppelin, Beatles, and Floyd shirts at Target or your mall's version of journeys. Hell, they even make onesies and are very popular baby gifts right now. They buy the shirts because everyone knows the band. I know you don't think they exist but I know a lot of people who wear these shirts and couldn't tell you their favorite album.
It's not that I don't think they exist - rather I think they are few and far between.
I am the people's champion.How do you come to this conclusion? Did you canvass a large enough population?
You can buy "vintage" looking Zeppelin, Beatles, and Floyd shirts at Target or your mall's version of journeys. Hell, they even make onesies and are very popular baby gifts right now. They buy the shirts because everyone knows the band. I know you don't think they exist but I know a lot of people who wear these shirts and couldn't tell you their favorite album.
Hence why anecdotal discussions never go anywhere.
and none of these bands will ever have the cultural influence of the Beatles and the Stones. those two are untouchable -- they are only comparable to Elvis and Dylan.
Hmmmm. Well, not having teenagers myself, I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about what they're listening to these days.
Being that I was a teenager just a few years ago, I can tell you Led Zeppelin is more popular than U2.
And Slim Whitman
^^When I was a teenager, not that long ago (I'm 29), the whole sex drugs and rock 'n roll cliché turned me off. What I liked about U2, besides their great music, was the opposite of the rock 'n roll clichés, their intelligence etc. I do like Bono's policital rants more than some of the pleasing he does today, but I can see why he's doing it....
I am the people's champion.
and none of these bands will ever have the cultural influence of the Beatles and the Stones. those two are untouchable -- they are only comparable to Elvis and Dylan.
Not at all. I still mourn the death of Pelle Lindbergh and I blame whoever decided to put an elementary school there.
Also are you too young to remember Bernie Perant, Bobby Clarke, Dave Schultz?
I agree that Pink Floyd is closer to U2 in this discussion. However, I think the difference between U2 and Floyd is that Floyd gets more respect for their work (because they're better technical musicians) whereas U2 gets more love for their work. Which is why I think Floyd is often put in with the others.i think more teenagers in the 1990s preferred LZ to U2, but i think that support was wide but not deep.
LZ kicks ass. they just do. they have two legitimate musical virtuosos, and they never sound wussie. they do, however, sound a bit dated, but that point in time (early/mid-70s) has been painted with enough nostalgia via film and television (think Dazed and Confused) that it feels like a rite of passage. and the music is great. i think part of being a deeper music fan when you are a teenager is to reach back into the past and discover what is now a huge inventory of music, and LZ is a big part of that. but they are very much hard rock, and while everyone's parents like The Beatles, LZ still has enough of an edge that it could upset your parents, there's enough danger and sex and drugs to make it feel like an authentic experience.
i'd put Floyd more along the lines of U2 and Springsteen, actually. certainly not when it comes to their actual sound, but in that Floyd is a band that some people get REALLY into, and some people never go near. me, i've seen The Wall, and i like Wish You Were Here and Comfortably Numb like everyone else, but that's it. but i have friends who knew every word, every lyric, had every poster -- it becomes a part of one's worldview, similar to how Springsteen and U2 seem to represent specific worldviews as well. these bands become much more a part of one's identity -- people identify as a Bruce or Floyd fan, but no one really identifies as a LZ fan. everyone IS a fan, and some people are bigger fans than others, but it really is about the music, whereas these three others (u2, Bruce, PF) seem to use music to explore other themes (god, social justice, reality itself).
so no one's really right or wrong here, but i do enjoy teasing out differences and similarities between these different bands.
and none of these bands will ever have the cultural influence of the Beatles and the Stones. those two are untouchable -- they are only comparable to Elvis and Dylan.
Not at all. I still mourn the death of Pelle Lindbergh and I blame whoever decided to put an elementary school there.