Depech Mode or New Order

I'll be the first to admit: I was listening to Dokken and Whitesnake when these bands were starting out. I saw posters of them on the wall at KWUR during my 6 - 8 AM Sunday morning DJ shift. I didn't know who they were, didn't listen to them, and hoped that they would go away. But they didn't. Today: I still couldn't name one song by either of them, but apparently they were both the "Godfathers" of electronic/dance.

Except, there can only be one Godfather. So who is it? Who is the rightful progenitor of all that is ELECTRONIC today?

Dinosaur Jr. vs. White Stripes

I'm going strictly on gut instinct here. Seems to me that Dino Jr. was pretty much the biggest Indie band in the 90s, and White Stripes are the biggest of the 2000s. Both have recently put out albums. Dino's fan base is clearly fading-- they've moved something like 50k copies. And White Stripes are getting bigger...I think they are playing MSG this week?

So, it's a weird, shifting dynamic. Early movers get an advantage, so Dino has the edge there. (Would WS exist if Mascis hadn't paved the way?) And in the 90s, to be indie was more important, culturally speaking, cause there weren't that many indie bands. But going strictly by overall popularity, WS has it wrapped up. They're not even indie anymore, at least in the sense that a major label has picked them up, and they are playing MSG.

So who is bigger? And if you say WS is bigger, would you also say that WS is bigger today than Dino was when Spin made the famous "J Mascis is God" issue?

U2 vs. REM

Last week, a friend mentioned that I should do U2 vs. REM, and now I see Brooklen saying the same. So, by the whoisbigger "Rule of 2" I must do a U2 vs. REM poll.

Me, I don't think there is any question that U2 is bigger. Cause Bono is the biggest star in pop/rock -- on par with Madonna in the late 80s, bigger than Madonna in the late 90s, and pretty much the biggest today. No active stadium rocker commands as much attention as Bono.

But the people have spoken (or at least two of them have) and the people want REM vs. U2. So what do you say? Is there anyone who can or wants to make a case that REM is actually bigger than U2?

Lynyrd Sknyrd vs. The Allman Brothers

My goodness. Who knew that it would take a post on Lynyrd Skynrd and REM to really get the blogosphere riled up. Never have I received such a deluge of hate mail and angry voice messages. It seems the REM fans really take issue with being compared to LS...somehow REM is "above" all those rough edges in southern rock. If I understand it right, REM fans are all about sitting around and musing about existentialism and the meaning of "eponymous" while LS fans are just drunken frat boys out looking for their next rape victim. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Maybe the YAWNs are not so boring after all? http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page94?oid=146758&sn=Detail

I don't know. Anyway, some of you seem to prefer that I compare Apples to Apples. That Southern Rockers be compared only to Southern Rockers. Others seem to think that although REM are arguably the biggest and maybe first of 90s alternative acts, LS are actually not as important to Southern Rock as the Allman brothers. So, I'm going to try to clear this up with a new post: LS vs. The Allman Brothers. Now we can have Apples and Apples. And we can clear up this "Fathers of Southern Rock" thing.

And oh yeah: to anyone who thought I was calling REM "southern" rock, I am SO SORRY, cause REM are obviously MUCH too nuanced to be "southern", even if they do happen to be from the South. (I do wonder though: If Michael Stipe was from Scotland, would that burnish REM's alternative/indie cred? Do REM fans secretly wish REM was from the UK?). If Michael Stipe WAS from Scotland, would he be as big as Bono today? I digress...

Today, it's Allman Bros vs. Lynrd Skynrd. Got it? I don't want to leave any room for confusion...

Lynyrd Skynrd vs. REM

Skynrd defined/started/put Southern Rock on the map. Freebird and Sweet Home Alabama. You don't get much bigger than that.

REM pretty much single-handedly gave birth to the college rock scene in the 90s, which gave birth to "alternative" and all that alternative has become-- including, arguably, Nirvana, the hugest of the huge in the past 20 years.

So who is bigger?

Tom Petty vs. Steve Winwood

I debuted this questoin at a party on Satuday night. Most of my friends went with Petty, to the extent that I was beginnng to think it was landslide and not worth a post. But then I got my first vote for Winwood, and I decided to stick with it.

Petty is huge, between the Heartbreakers, FreeFallin', WildFlowers, and the Travelling Wilburys, he's had a long string of hits and critical acclaim. At the same time, tho, I can't help but think that his early career he was somewhat dismissed by critics cause he wasn't really defining a sound. He was kind of slogging it out, writing lots of good songs, but not really EXCITING a movement. Bands don't really sound like Petty, they are either Brit Pop/Cali Pop/Punk/Southern Rock or whatever, and Petty didn't really start or even evolve any of those genres.

Winwood, meanwhile, has the advantage of the early mover. He was part of the 60's scene, the that which brought us all of the pop of the 70s and 80s. Blind Faith, Traffic...and then when he made his solo comeback in the 80s, the DJs referred to him with a kind of reverance reserved for icons. So, even tho he seems to have disappeared in the last 20 years, I'm giving him a shot based on his larger-than-life influence on culture and music. What do you think-- any takers for Winwood?

Britney Spears vs. Paris Hilton

The thing is, is...is that Britney was once the queen. She was supposed to inherit the crown from MADONNA, and you don't get much bigger than Madonna. The closest thing to her was Christina Aguwhatever but then CA won a Grammy and all of a sudden CA was legit and a critics fave and Britney had the bubble gum pop title all wrapped up. But now BS has fallen from grace and is the butt of every late night talk show joke. Meanwhile CA continues to make music but nobody really seems to care.
This whoisbigger post is about the fall of music in general. Pop music, rock music, even country music is on a downswing. And don't give me that "it's cause of the iPod" or "its cause of filesharing", cause I'm not buying it. Music is no longer big because of DVDs, home theaters, the movie industry, and YouTube. People just aren't listening to music as much as they used to. Certainly not in groups anyways, like in front of a boom box or while playing basketball or whatever.
Which is why we are reduced to comparing Britney to Paris. Cause you don't really get much bigger than Paris these days. She is it. And she put out an album, I think. Or at least a single. Britney is nowhere and Paris is everywhere and so I ask: Who is bigger? Mindless former popstar or mindless current tabloid star?

De La Soul or A Tribe Called Quest

Both were supposed saviors of hip-hop from gangsta/sucka MC stylings. Both integrated jazz and mellow grooves into their playing. Both have more or less faded away since the 90s. So who is bigger?

I say Tribe is bigger, cause it feels like they had more influence and Q-Tip went on to collaborate with more artists, seems like maybe he grew the medium and grew with the medium.

But then again I don't really know hip hop so good. Anybody care to enlighten?

Radiohead or ColdPlay?

First of all thanks to all those who commented on the first posting. I'd say the people have spoken and the winner is Paul Simon.

Next up is Radiohead vs. ColdPlay. Another tough one for me, as Radiohead is in the Top 10 all time for me, and maybe my overall favorite band still actively making music.

But overall, I have to go with ColdPlay. They just are bigger all around. Bigger albums, more hits, and I think even more influence. Look at a band like Keane...would/could Keane exist if ColdPlay didn't? Also, ColdPlay passes the High School test...my wife teaches at Natick HS and tells me that more kids know/recognize/like ColdPlay than like Radiohead.

So, although Radiohead gets props for singlehandedly giving faith to the thousands of alternative-weaned 30 and 40 somethings out there who have not yet given up hope in pop/rock as a medium, ColdPlay is bigger: More commercially successful and more influential for pop bands currently making a living playing music.

David Bowie or Paul Simon

I'm talking in terms of overall hugeness: Which artist is more popular, has had more hits, has had more of an impact on society, and is a bigger cultural icon? And don't let your personal preference affect your opinion.

Paul Simon is bigger. Why? Because "Sound of Silence" was something of an anthem of the 60s, and the closest Bowie comes is Ziggy Stardust. And the 80s comebacks? Well Bowie brought us "Let's Dance" which was a huge hit, but in the end it didn't really change or add anything to the music that was popular in the 80s, it just kind of reinforced it. Whereas "Graceland" was not only hugely popular, it brought the South African musicians into pop music, and, I'd argue, paved the way for Dave Matthews in the 90s.

Now I say all this having never bought Graceland and only realizing that "Me and Julio" was a Paul Simon song as of about 3 months ago. And being a huge Bowie fan, right up to and past his "Outside" and "Earthling" phases. So, now you see how I make a personal sacrifice in the interest of recording whoisbigger. Cause we have to be honest here.