You have 10 seconds to name a rock band from the last 25 years that is both critically acclaimed and culturally relevant. Please note that commercial success is not synonymous with cultural relevance.
Impossible Mode: No Nirvana.
Oh wait, you can't.
R.I.P Rock
Please note:
>The Strokes, Arctic Monkeys, Queens of the Stone Age, The Mars Volta, Franz Ferdinand, The Smashing Pumpkins, Weezer, Oasis, Bloc Party, The Libertines, Blur, Pulp, Suede, and Interpol are not culturally relevant, all of them are fad artists associated with a certain 3-5 year timespan with no real longevity or standing cultural relevancy. You're not going to hear their music being played at a high school dance or have a large number of normies sharing them on Facebook the way you would a contemporary hip hop artist like Drake or Kendrick Lamar
>Jack White is not a culturally relevant artist. Seven Nation Army may be a culturally relevant track but having only one culturally relevant track indicates a lack of longevity and thus a lack of cultural relevance as artists.
>Muse, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Tool, Kings of Leon, The Black Keys, Pearl Jam, Green Day, My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Blink-182, Brand New, Taking Back Sunday, Mumford & Sons, and Red Hot Chili Peppers are not critically acclaimed.
>The Flaming Lips, Sufjan Stevens, Tame Impala, The National, The Hold Steady, Dinosaur Jr, Deerhunter, Mac DeMarco, Porcupine Tree, Beach House, Ween, Titus Andronicus, Bon Iver, Pixies, Spoon, Pavement and Modest Mouse are far too niche to be considered culturally relevant. This is also true for all metal.
>R.E.M., Bruce Springsteen, and U2 have not been critically acclaimed in the last 25 years.
>LCD Soundsystem, Radiohead and Arcade Fire are not rock bands
Why aren't radiohead, lcd, and arcade fire rock bands?
Swans and GYBE
St. Vincent
King Crimson
Linkin Park
You know it's true.
>>64273541
>critically acclaimed
ok lmao
Fuck you OP. There seems to be no way to name a band without you finding a way to make it not match your criteria. Why did you create this thread in the first place?
>>64273468
because that would defeat the point of the pasta
>>64273439
>>are not critically acclaimed.
>>have not been critically acclaimed in the last 25 years.
>muh P4k is the only publication that counts
System of a Down and Tool do good with the critics, are they not? Really asking. They both have albums selling in 7 digits I believe.
>>64273564
When you actually check on it, yeah they really are.
>This Pasta again
>Newfags taking the bait again
>>64273652
Not to mention Foo Fighters are SUPER critically acclaimed.
One album getting mediocre reviews doesn't automatically = not critically acclaimed.
>>64273752
all of that stuff he wrote in there is critacally acclaimed. It depends on what critics do you read.
But i'm pretty sure that Rolling Stone rates very highly bands like Muse, Pearl Jam and other i.e.
The Rising (Springsteen's 9/11 album) was also Rolling Stone's #1 pick for 2002. Bob Dylan's new music has been getting good press since 1997 and Modern Times topped the charts for a week or two.
My Bloody Valentine?
Critical acclaim and cultural relevance aren't necessarily related to each other either, at least when something's new and of the moment. Rolling Stone bashed Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd all the time in the early 70s.
>>64273439
>R.E.M., Bruce Springsteen, and U2 have not been critically acclaimed in the last 25 years.
This is completely false.
>>64273439
>Tool or RHCP not critically acclaimed
how?
Why does /mu/ keep falling for this stale pasta?
>>64273517
I like St. Vincent but how is she culturally relevant?
