Re-read your posts in this thread and see if you can figure it out.

Still logged in I see.

On the idea of old bands being more distinctive than newer bands, consider this: The DJ's are picking between what are considered classic cuts and the best of the best from the past; with new bands, they're playing almost any and all of a certain genre because the labels are trying to distribute it, get it noticed, and it's still being produced, as opposed to remaining a staple like Priest or AC/DC. How do you think radio sounded back in the day? I'm sure there were plenty of bands played back then that get little to no recognition now, along with staples from years past getting some rotation because it's considered classic. Classic Rock was not Classic Rock in the 70s and 80s - it was contemporary, ever-producing music, being made every day. In a few years, do you think certain rock songs found on the radio now will still get plays in the future? I heard a couple of rap songs on the radio today - "How to Love" by Lil Wayne and "Look at Me Now" by Chris Breezy and guests, to be specific - that got major rotation just months ago (maybe a year) that just got played for the first time in a couple months, and I'm a regular listener of the local rap stations. What's considered a lasting hit changes all the time, even in just a few months. When was the last time you heard Eiffel 65 on the radio? Around here, it must have been years since the last time i heard that shitty song of theirs on the waves.

I guess your not dude. But I'll give you one thing, I DID dismiss your example of a multi-platinum selling artist. Multi-platinum selling means nothing really. It doesn't really even matter if he spawned imitators. If he is truly innovative, in every sense of the word (which is what I'm talking about) then he should be highly regarded the world over, such as those I mentioned. I'm not stuck in the past. However, I don't really feel connected to the present. Which is why I came here in the first place. I don't feel there are any GREATS out there anymore. There are no John Lennons or Michael Jacksons or EVHs anymore from what I see. I think its because of several reasons. One of them is the fact there just isn't much more to go on these days. I believe humans have already explored most of the creative avenues music has to lead us down. That's why your seeing people come up with truly original ideas and approaches now (such as the ones I mentioned did). The new sounds and ideas simply aren't there. I admit that I may be wrong. My only problem in the first olace was you turning this into an argumeng when it never was.

You're putting claims forth as fact that we disagree with. We're discussing, not arguing. :)

Good point. I sort of agree. But I think I WILL stick to my belief that classic bands sound more disctinctive compared to newer bands. Say what you will. That's how I feel. Whether it better or worse.

Can this thread just get locked already? People are arguing in circles, and quite frankly, this guy (gal?) has no idea what he (or she) is talking about.

I feel like the statements that EVH and Michael Jackson were truly innovative ARE facts. You certainly don't see other people credited with being the King of Pop or the original shredding metal guitarist. I know these guys are very basic examples. Sure, it took having all their contemporaries to feed off of to make their innovations possible and popular, but at the end of the day, there is one person crowned as the true innovator. I'm just wondering why these large innovations are not happening now. Why does rock still use largely the same approaches and techniques as it did hears ago? Why doesn't someone break down and say, I'm going to be truly innovative and original. I'm going to spawn a new generation of music. Its just harder to do now because the well seems to be running dry IMO.

Why doe everyone tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? I don't get it. I think I have presented myself with integrity and much in-depth understanding of these topics. Its you all who are lost. If this thread is bothering you, go the hell away. And don't come back.

What we're saying is that popularity rarely has any correlation to level of influence, and that there is absolutely no reason to crown one person as the true innovator, since different artists all contribute in different ways and you're giving people like EVH far too much credit. Urban gave you an example of someone who's innovations were just as important that you discounted simply cause you weren't familiar with his name.

What I'm trying to understand is why you think worldwide name recognition is necessarily conducive to influence and innnovation?