Who is The Greatest Hard Rock/Metal Band of All Time, Part 3 – The 1990s

HardRockMetal

Rather than delve into the delusion that currently is supposed to oversee this country (and trust me, there’s plenty to call the Tangerine Ignoramus out on simply from this last weekend alone), I’ve decided to start something that will definitely be much more fun. Since college basketball is deciding the 64 teams (OK, 68 teams because of those simply idiotic play in games the NCAA conducts) that will compete for their championship, thought it would be fun to do the same but in a different arena – the genre of hard rock/metal music.

As it is one of my personal fortes, hard rock/metal music is essentially celebrating its 50th Anniversary since the release of Steppenwolf’s “Born to Be Wild,” which contained the lines “Get your motor running/heavy metal thunder.” With this in mind, I’ve put together a compilation of the top 64 hard rock/metal bands from four different eras – the 1960s/70s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s/10s – and split them up in accordance with those eras into “regions.” We’ll break down the matchups in each bracket and, with hope, readers will make their own comments and vote on the matchups and perhaps they’ll be some sort of prize at the end – the management here (re:  me) is still trying to come up with that prize.

What are the criteria for consideration? First, the band/singer would have to have some sort of longevity to their career – you don’t see many bands or singers that are considered “legendary” if they were only around for a couple of albums (Amy Winehouse is a rare exception, but that’s a discussion for another time). Second, the band/singer would have to have an impact on the genre – did they do something particularly noteworthy or notorious that put them into the annals of the genre’s history, a song or “behavior” that was historic. Third, just how popular were they when they were in existence – a band or singer that was wildly popular with the fans might get some leeway over a critical darling OR vice versa (depending on tastes). Fourth, what accolades did they receive – awards, gold records, and recognition by the industry (Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, hello?) are all under consideration here. Finally, was the band/singer influential on future generations of music – have they helped shape the genre since they have left the sphere?

RRHallofFame

We talked about the 1960s/70s in Part 1 and the 1980s in Part 2, so now we’re ready to head into a decade – the 1990s – that saw something that we have never seen before in rock music and probably won’t again. At the start of the decade, “hair metal” was still ruling the roost when it came to hard rock/metal, but it was quickly snuffed out by the sounds emanating from the Northwest. “Grunge,” for all intents, killed the “hair metal” band while embracing the mood of the culture of the day. That cannibalization by grunge in devouring the “hair metal” bands is something that we had never seen before in the industry – normally if something new comes along, it will eventually get folded in like an omelet into the existing structure(s). Grunge chowed down on “hair metal” rather than soak itself into the genre.

There were many candidates for this “regions” bracket and many of those selections reflect how grunge became the powerhouse of the 1990s. I am sure there will be some complaints as to the selections and, if so, please include those when you discuss the matchups in your reply!

Nirvana

Nirvana (1) vs. Primus (16)

Unfortunately for Les Claypool and the men from Primus, this looks like utter destruction from the start. Going against one of the bands considered the “fathers” of the grunge movement, a singer and musician considered the “voice of a generation” by their fans AND a critically, commercially, and historically lauded success (first-ballot entry into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame)? Hey, somebody had to be the #16 seed in this bracket…

Marilyn Manson (8) vs. Nine Inch Nails (9)

From whatever angle you look at the matchup, these two bands seem to be equals across the board. Challenging thoughts and beliefs in the masses? Check. Earn scorn from the “squares” for your appearance or actions? Yep. Influence a generation with your styles, songs, and subterfuge? You got it. Both Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails were the real groundbreakers during the decade. About the only way to set the two apart is that Marilyn Manson was a band; Nine Inch Nails was basically Trent Reznor playing all the instruments and producing the material. That may give him the edge.

Pearl Jam (4) vs. Ministry (13)

Yes, it may sound sacrilegious, but Pearl Jam only rated the #4 seed in the 1990s. Some might complain they should be in one of the top three slots but, as you’ll see, who do you toss out? As far as this matchup goes, Eddie Vedder and Co. get the nod for overall influence, commercial and critical success and various honors earned. Then again, the vote of those following this tournament may have something different to say about the subject.

Foo Fighters (5) vs. Nickelback (12)

For all the flak they receive, Nickelback is one of the most popular groups of the 1990s – amazing since no one admits to actually listening to them. They certainly churned out the music during the decade, no matter how banal it could be. Foo Fighters brings our first double nominee in the tournament – Dave Grohl, the drummer for Nirvana, went on to form Foo Fighters after the death of Kurt Cobain – and presents a band that was built for pop success but never forgot its rock roots. We’ll see if Nickelback’s loyal legions turn out to try to stop the Fighters from taking this one down.

RATM

Rage Against the Machine (2) vs. Linkin Park (15)

Just like the 1-16 matchup in this region, the 2-15 also looks to be a beat down. Rage Against the Machine was one of the most political bands in the history of rock music, let alone hard rock/metal, and used their powerful musicianship (in the hands of guitarist Tom Morello and vocalist Zack de la Rocha) to drive that message home. Linkin Park, while putting together some very good work of their own, couldn’t hold a candle to Rage, however. What might give some pause? Linkin Park is still around today – the same can’t be said for Rage Against the Machine (although there are murmurs that this could change).

Korn (7) vs. Tool (10)

There is one key thing that may give one of these groups the edge over the other. While both are very accomplished in the hard rock/metal arena, Korn continues to put out solid albums to an adoring fan base. Because of what the band has called “legal issues,” Tool hasn’t released any new music in a decade and doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to release anything now (those legal issues were resolved in 2015). Even without the nearly decade-long hiatus, it was going to be tough for Tool to unseat Korn – but we’ll see who the voters like.

Green Day (3) vs. Creed (14)

Green Day was the pseudo-punk band that everyone would love throughout the 1990s, but Creed – also trying to make their mark outside of the “grunge wave” with their pretentious songs and charismatic singer Scott Stapp – tried to match Green Day for supremacy, especially in the latter part of the decade. Stapp’s personal demons would catch up with Creed, however, breaking the band up as the new millennium started. Green Day has gone on to tremendous success commercially and critically and has been inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame as one of the influential bands of the genre. Let’s just gloss over the fact that the “punks” have a Broadway show now…

WhiteZombie

Alice in Chains (6) vs. White Zombie/Rob Zombie (11)

I am sensing an upset here. While Alice in Chains was an integral part of the grunge movement, their time in the sun was a rather brief one that spanned only four years (90-94). White Zombie was about as “non-grunge” as it got, instead going into an Alice Cooper-like “nightmare metal” that Rob Zombie still performs to this day (the actual band dissolved in 1998). Perhaps because Zombie has been able to push into other fields – he is a noted film director and comic book buff – the notoriety of the band has prevailed while Alice in Chains has slowly disappeared.

(Writer’s note: I know Soundgarden was left out of the region. However, after you get by Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, and some of the other grunge acts, Soundgarden was actually pretty far down the list, don’t you think?)

That’s it for the third “region” of our tournament. We’ll look at the 2000s/10s (and be thinking of who could be the #1 seed for that “region” – would love to hear those opinions) later this week and get into the second round, hopefully by next Monday. Don’t forget to vote by replying here and I will compile the responses – and maybe award a prize once a champion is crowned to a reader!

Advertisements

For Minorities, It’s Better to Have Deserving Oscar Nominees Than Token Lip Service

Oscars

There used to be a time when I went to the movies quite frequently. I was, at one point in my life, very active in seeing Hollywood’s greatest – and sometimes not-so-great – cinematic efforts as soon as they came out, simply for the entertainment value of it all (at that time, I was also working in radio, so I used it as fodder for my on-air commentary). Thus, I was at one time quite knowledgeable when it came down to the films that were nominated for the Academy Awards and the actors and directors that were put up in their particular categories.

As the years have gone by, however, I’ve gotten less tolerant of what goes on in movie theaters. Maybe it’s the price that is being paid to get into seeing these cinematic efforts. There was a time you could pay as little as $.50 to see a film that came out three months previous and, if it was in its first week of release, you could catch the matinee for $2.50 or $3; now, you can’t touch a film for under $7.50 in its first week and these bargain movie theaters don’t exist for the most part. Maybe it’s the concessions and the jacked-up prices there, maybe it’s the incivility of the people going to the movies…I’ve gotten to the point that I wait until the film I REALLY want to see comes to my house On Demand where I can sit with my microwave popcorn and my beverage of choice in my recliner and watch the movie (not to mention if I have to go to the bathroom, I just pause the film). Thus, my knowledge of the movie world isn’t quite as extensive as it has been in the past.

When the 2016 Academy Awards announced their nominees last week, I took note accordingly to potentially get some ideas for Movie Night with my lovely wife. Unfortunately, from looking at the Best Picture nominations, there aren’t many that will pass both of our stringent guidelines. Trumbo may be something that interests me (and thus might see Bryan Cranston’s Best Actor nominated role), but Lovely Wife may be interested in something along the lines of Joy or  Brooklyn (knocking off one of the Best Picture nominees and Jennifer Lawrence, who earned another Best Actress nomination). As you can see, the Movie Night decision is a difficult one in the Burton household (the last movie watched? Inside Out and don’t judge us…that was a more adult film than many you get out of Hollywood!).

The point being made here is that, from the glance over the list of nominees, there were some excellent choices made by the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). Some may tilt the head a bit at Mad Max:  Fury Road or The Martian, two films that were extremely popular with moviegoers, but this installment of the Mad Max franchise was a visually stunning and exhausting exercise for viewers while The Martian was a well told story. In the acting categories, there were no weak spots save for maybe the sentimental nomination of Sylvester Stallone in the Best Supporting Actor category for bringing back his iconic boxer Rocky Balboa in Creed (he’s probably also the favorite, however). The one thing I didn’t think of was “Who do I drop so that some minority actors can get into the mix? What film do I eliminate so that a minority film gets some attention?”

Most of the attention after the announcement of the nominees for the Oscars has been the factor that, over the five major awards (Best Picture, Best Actor and Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Actress and, hell, let’s throw in Best Director just for shits and giggles), no minority actor – and, in particular, no black actors – were nominated for any of the awards. This was a point brought up by the host of this year’s Oscars telecast, comedian Chris Rock, who Tweeted that the Oscars had become “the White BET Awards.”

While that was probably meant half funny/half serious, what has happened since has been all serious. The wife of actor Will Smith (who himself has supposedly done some great work in the movie Concussion as the doctor who discovered CTE in pro football players – I only say supposedly because I haven’t seen the film), Jada Pinkett-Smith, went on a tirade about how black actors should boycott the Academy Awards ceremonies over the lack of “diversity in nominations.” For his part, director Spike Lee has jumped on the bandwagon also, saying that he will not attend as a protest over the situation.

A boycott or protest are completely unnecessary on several aspects. First, the head of the AMPAS has noted that the organization is in the midst of changing its membership and, as that takes time, seismic shifts aren’t going to happen overnight. In an announcement following Pinkett-Smith’s hissy fit, AMPAS president Cheryl Boone said “dramatic steps” were being taken to “alter the makeup of our membership” to become more diverse, but more time was needed. The average member of AMPAS is a white male that is 62 years of age so, yes, it needs some changes. Boone and those in charge are sharp to realize this and some time has to be given to be able to make those changes.

Second, would you rather have token actors and/or directors on the list rather than those who actually did outstanding work? When Denzel Washington and Halle Berry swept the Best Actor trophies in 2002, they were the most outstanding actors in film that year. When the movie 12 Years a Slave and actor Lupita Nyong’o won Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress in 2013, they were the best in those respective fields that year. I would rather see people nominated when they arguably deserve the nomination, not just because they are of a particular racial background.

Sure, there were some great performances this year by black actors (and, since this seems to be where much of the screaming is coming from, let’s focus here). The movie Straight Outta Compton was one of the bigger success stories of the year (grossing $188 million by the end of 2015, the best in the history of musical biopics), but which person gets the Best Actor nomination from the five men who performed as the rap group N.W.A. (as an aside, one of my favorite actors from Leverage, Aldis Hodge, was a part of that group)? O’Shea Jackson, Jr., might be the logical choice, but he was simply playing his father, Ice Cube, not a huge leap in any stretch.

Then there’s John Boyega, who is the British actor currently starring in the final three installments of the Star Wars franchise, starting with Star Wars:  The Force Awakens, as Finn. Now, since I haven’t seen this film as of yet, I have to go on reports that say he has done an outstanding job of portraying a Stormtrooper whose loyalties are strained, and this may well be deserving of an acting nomination. But did you see how many Academy Award nominations that Star Wars:  The Force Awakens got overall? Five nominations are great for a film, but all were in technical categories, none of them in any acting categories.

There’s also some other well-known black actors, such as Idris Elba (Beasts of No Nation), Will Smith (Concussion), Michael B. Jordan (Creed) and Latin actor/director Benicio del Toro (Sicario), who weren’t chosen for their roles on screen in 2016. I don’t believe that they are being slighted in any way due to their skin tone or racial background. It more than likely is due to a certain snootiness of Oscar voters – who will often go for “artistic” films rather than “popular” ones when it comes to the Academy Awards – more so than any conspiracy over skin color.

Finally, there’s the simple logic of the numbers. Most of the films that come out of Hollywood feature actors that are Caucasians. In a study in 2014 from the Bunche Center for African American Studies at UCLA, only 10.5% of the 172 films that were released in 2011 featured minorities in lead roles. The study found that many of those films were comedies, such as efforts from noted black director Tyler Perry, and films like the action flick Fast Five, not exactly the fare that Academy Award voters are considering. Furthermore, more than half the films (51.2%) featured a cast that was 10% minority or less, the study found. You’d like to think that, by this point, it might have gotten better, but apparently not to the point where it would have an impact on the nominations.

What is the answer to the lack of minority nominees for the Academy Awards? Simply time and the proper vehicles. The more diverse that AMPAS becomes, perhaps the more diverse the nominee list will become also. Additionally, when there are more quality films for minority actors and directors to take part in – instead of movies like White Chicks – then perhaps the attention of AMPAS will be attracted. Either way, it isn’t a situation that will be fixed overnight.