Some bands pioneer a new and somewhat radically original sound by being the first band to find major success with that sound. To many people, these are the "great bands," the ones they'd consider timeless and historically significant (in musical terms.) I refuse to name names here because I really don't know that much about music history, but perhaps others can fill in the gap.

Other bands take a sound and a genre that's already well-established and try to write the best songs that they can within that genre. Foo Fighters come to mind, for some reason. Perhaps others can support or refute this, as I'm really not that familiar with the Foo Fighters. I am rather familiar with Yellowcard, however--a band which many claim fit in this genre. Without disputing that, I will however say that I thoroughly enjoy much of Yellowcard's music, especially their most recent and not very widely familiar LP Paper Walls.

The question is, can a band truly be great without creating a new sound? Can a band be "great"--worthy of mentioning in the context of the entire industry and the course of music history--simply because they write really good songs within a familiar genre? Or can it be argued that all the most significant bands do pioneer their own sound, or some aspect of their music (e.g. the more specific aspects of tonality and composition, its production, its performance) in some way? Is an element of "freshness" inevitably linked to musical greatness?

And then, if you like, go a step further and ask/answer the converse: Is musical greatness of some degree inevitable to those that pioneer a fresh sound? This becomes relevant when examining extreme experimental bands--and also when looking at avant-garde composition from the early 1900's from composers like Arnold Schoenberg and Alban Berg. Many find their music difficult to enjoy (or perhaps even to endure) at first, yet now they are hailed as the usherers-in of a new generation of music, some of the great composers of history. Will the same ever be said of The Mars Volta? (sorry, best example I can think of. You guys will have to help me out.) Is mainstream success an important element of greatness? Can a band or composer truly influence the course of musical history without achieving said success--or is such influence even necessary to be considered great?

It's a lot of questions. Hopefully this will turn out to be an interesting discussion.

For the genre of music I like, there's only three great bands, in my opinion. I'm a classic rock freak so, for me, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Doors are the three greats.

This thread, so good.

As with most discussions on the value of music this thread is obviously going to be fairly subjective. How about we don't turn this into a repeatitive genre war and actually discuss the fairly interesting wider issue of goodness vs greatness that djminkus777 laid out in the first post. I'm getting tired of genre bashing "4dalulz", it's rarely funny any more and if that's your only reason for posting then go elsewhere to behave like a 12 year old.

Anyway as for the original question I think this is something which the internet has blown wide open. With the power that broadcast media like radio and TV once had over what was considered musical greatness dwindling, I think it's a lot harder for bands/albums to achieve that label of greatness. In many ways there's more "good music" than ever, fuelled by incessant blogging, file-sharing and internet radio/streaming sites. However the increase in the number of hyped bands has massively shortened the length of the hype cycle and it's only a matter of time before the next "good thing" comes along.

While bands like Animal Collective, Grizzly Bear and Phoenix have all released great, critically acclaimed albums this year I just don't see any of them achieving greatness in the way that a modern indie/alt-rock band like Radiohead has.

"Greatness" is a label almost always earned retrospectively and requires a band to consistently produce great, fresh music over a long period of time, something that today's music industry is making harder and harder to do.

quote The Dave

"Greatness" is a label almost always earned retrospectively and requires a band to consistently produce great, fresh music over a long period of time, something that today's music industry is making harder and harder to do.

One of the problems in defining 'greats' in music is that most of the so-called 'greats' have been pioneers of particular genres. The Beatles for pop, The Rolling Stones for harder rock, Black Sabbath for metal etc. Yet the idea of actually pioneering a genre in the year 2010 is almost impossible to fathom - it's like the idea of inventing a new colour, you can't tell what it would look like until it emerged. All we know is that we've never had so many genres of music, and it's hard to see where the room for TRUE innovation is left. A lot of bands are working on perfecting a formula for their own particular genre, but it's rare to see a band actually create a new unique sound in this day and age, and that makes it harder for them to be considered 'greats'.

Almost every riff by any band now has been influenced by older heavy metal bands, especially Sabbath. But that doesn't mean there the better band.

When listening to whatever song it's not how mainstream, or how "cool" the artist or the members of the band are, or what instruments are used, it's if you find it to be a good song or not.

Distinguishing between good bands and great bands is the same, it's all down to preference, where as I think Megadeth are a great band, Metallica are a good band and so on.

Every band and artist now is influenced or course. There not going to just pick up an instrument without any influence from a band or whatever. I can say this from experience because although I've been a huge metal fan for years I have't learnt any instruments associated with the genre. But seeing how Dave Mustaine has progressed with his guitar skills and never say die attitude he has influenced me to start playing the guitar.

So really, the first band to make a new sound like The Beatles for example, aren't always the better band, it boils down to what you like.

The problem is actually establishing what a "great" band even is. Is it a band who has reached amazing heights of fame and popularity from the mass public (Radiohead, Oasis, The Beatles, and such) or is it a band who has received the highest praise possible time and time again from critics and oft heralded as musical geniuses (Animal Collective, Olivia Tremor Control, The Flaming Lips, and so forth)? If you ask any indie fan to name the greatest artists of all time, I bet Neutral Milk Hotel would be somewhere high up on that list. They certainly didn't create the lo-fi sound, they just did it better (subjective) than anyone else ever has. On the other end of the spectrum, if you ask a hundred young school girls who they think the greatest bands are, Kings of Leon would probably be on every list. They didn't create the southern garage rock sound from their earlier albums (that nobody listens to) or the sappy arena rock love sound that you hear on the radio every five minutes... it actually baffles me how KoL managed to gain such mass popularity with their new sound.

But to answer the question, I would say no, musical greatness is not directly correlated to pioneering a new sound. In fact, I'd go a step further and suggest that the pioneers of a sound are usually the ones who are not well-known at all and who aren't actually able to get the most out of their new sound. It's the artists who can come in and polish and tweak the sound into something utterly amazing who achieve the greatness (NMH with lo-fi, Daft Punk with electronic, Oasis with Britpop, etc). Of course, then there are the bands who manage to sound completely unlike anything else, but these guys are exceptions to the rule and don't come around very often. And at the same time, sounding unique does not automatically translate into greatness, take Merzbow for example.

Dave said:

quote The Dave

"Greatness" is a label almost always earned retrospectively and requires a band to consistently produce great, fresh music over a long period of time, something that today's music industry is making harder and harder to do.

And to that I would respond that the crucial question to complete that definition--it seems pretty solid to me--is to specify just how "fresh" their "great, fresh music" has to be. Does a band need to progress from one album to the next with distinguishable sounds? What if someone unfamiliar with the band couldn't tell the album sounds apart, but the distinction was obvious to a more versed listener--would that distinction be enough to be called "fresh?" And finally, perhaps most importantly, what are the elements of freshness--does it have to be something very tangible and identifiable, like a more precise and "produced" sound or a move into uses of different tonalities? Or can it be something more subtle and less definable? Is subject matter of songs, and the manner with which it is expressed lyrically, an "element of freshness?"

Taker has implied that creating a new sound is indeed an essential aspect of greatness. Just for the record.

Shinobi, on the other hand, has argued that greatness is not dependent on the creation of a new sound but is purely based on personal preference, which might be taken to mean that mainstream success in an essential aspect of greatness, or could be restrained to the more personal level to mean that just as different bands are "good" for different people, different bands are "great" for each person and the overarching judgments of greatness aren't meaningful.

VR says that "musical greatness is not directly correlated to pioneering a new sound." In his argument, it is implicit that a degree of success and reception by some significant body of audience is essential to be labeled as "great." However, he seems to be defining how the label is used at large, without making clear his own personal view on how the word should be attached. Does he agree with the general way of labeling? (I don't know why I'm speaking to him directly but using the third person. )

quote djminkus777

Taker has implied that creating a new sound is indeed an essential aspect of greatness. Just for the record.

Now wait a minute, I was playing devil's advocate there as to the bands the term 'great' is generally applied to - they're all pioneers of genres.

However, I don't think bands need to pioneer a sound to be considered great - only to do it better than everybody else, as VulcanRaven suggested.

'K. That was part of why I tried to address everyone's comments: so I could make sure I had interpreted their stance correctly. Thanks for clearing that up.