i wasn't trying to add to the war of words. relevant music is basically young bands you hear when you cut on the radio and turn it to your favorite station.
I see your point, but sadly I can't follow it. The reason? To me radio is irrelevant, I listen to music because I like it, not because is radio-friendly or a best-seller.
Even look at KISS, if you manage to get some of them on some classic rock radio or the so called real rock radio (you don't have an idea how bad is here), you may get 'I Was Made For Loving You', 'Detroit Rock City' or Rock'N'Roll All Nite, and they have what...19 studio albums?
So people like KISS because they like the music, or just because they had a fair part of radio play and because they came from the 70's?
Look a Blue Oyster Cult, one of the best 70's band IMO, and they have 2-3 songs maybe on radio from a huge catalogue of astonishing songs.
So sorry but relevant music is the music A PERSON LIKES independant of their popularity or radio play. I'm going to PPX in a couple of weeks and most of the bands people consider absolutely relevant for the show are bands I don't even care about.
So relevance can be tricky depending on your point of view. Are The Beatles relevant? The Rolling Stones?, The Animals?, Herman's Hermits?, I mean if the Beatles would have never existed will rock/metal will be the same today, but what about Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders? Is Metallica relevant? Megadeth? Slayer? Kreator? Sepultura?, again if Metallica wouldn't have existed will be metal as we know it today?, but what about Destruction?
I believe some people here are mixing relevance with personal taste. I dislike
B so it is not relevant, and since you like
B but don't like
A you don't know about relevance of a band :Smug:
C'mon people this is UMOS we are better than that and we know it. Everybody likes whatever he/she wants, and everybody knows which bands are relevant historically...even if we don't like the music
, so no need to attack any band.
So carry on, I'm still enjoying the debate