Larrok

!dreamtheater!, but even if you were right about the album (absurdly), is this how you present your ideas? With insults and childish fights? Try to be mature and argue your opinions civilly.

Yes, of course I place the Smashing Pumpkins above Mr. Big; an album like "Siamese Dream" undoubtedly ranks among the top 100 records of the '90s, while even the best works of Mr. Big are far from innovative or original. The same goes for Guns (whom I adore anyway), who had no impact of innovation or particular influence in the history of rock. In fact, their purpose was quite the opposite: to try to recover the old stylistic elements of hard rock à la Aerosmith, giving it that punk energy that we feel in Appetite for Destruction (great album)... so let's not talk about avant-garde nonsense... there are many other bands that have revolutionized rock in the last 20 years.

I'm not denying they were great (especially live); but to be considered the best ROCK/hard rock band of the last 20 years, it takes more than just being "great"... I repeat, it might suffice within the realm of '80s/'90s hair metal/hard rock (Tesla, Extreme, etc...); I consider some songs from "Lean into it" and "Bump Ahead" to be good compositions, although very conventional, but nothing ever genius, nor remotely comparable, just limiting it to the '90s, for example to the works of Kyuss, Helmet, Melvins, Alice in Chains, Tool, Mogwai, etc... (not to mention more famous artists like Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden).

@Longliverock: a curiosity, how old are you? I hope you’re not of legal age because to say that Mr. Big are the best rock/hard-rock band of the last 20 years means you don’t know even a fraction of the fundamental bands in this field. Sure, they can be pleasant to listen to, but their success in the fan underworld is due to their hyper-technicality. At most, they can be considered a good hair-metal band, nothing more... if we venture into rock in general, they take beatings left and right.

Sorry !dreamtheater! what the hell does "you can’t deny their skill... inconceivable" even mean? How can one deduce an artist's skill? I guess your answer will be "from the level of technical preparation"; well, you know what? Wake up from dreamland, rock isn’t about being able to play scales at supersonic speed with academic precision, nor is it about rehashing styles that have long been overused, mostly without personal or original elaboration. At least, that’s not what high-level rock is; if anything, this is a caricature of rock that might appeal to those who require nothing from music but form, completely devoid of its content. Well, if this is the skill you are talking about, there's little to be proud of. That said, I’m not claiming that everything the DT have done is crap, quite the opposite, but this album definitely is, and not realizing it is a sign of poor culture in the rock field.

You can tell whoever the hell you want to go fuck themselves, this album is still a piece of crap.

What would your "little shits" be, if I may ask?

Adriano, if you criticize the DT for their musical approach filled with stylistic elements that are self-referential and not original, I completely agree with you, and it’s one of the most sensible criticisms that can be made against them. However, you can't then go on to praise Porcupine Tree, because the same aspect of formulaic rehashing of past stylistic elements can also be found in Wilson's band (which, to be fair, I like especially in their earlier works).

One of the absolute masterpieces of the Canterbury scene, as well as one of the best episodes of the '70s progressive era. And there are also plenty of high-level guitar parts, despite the genre often favoring keyboards as the main feature of the arrangements.

Celestial is one of the most important, but it’s still very raw; if you prefer (like me) sounds closer to post-rock, you absolutely must try Panopticon. As for Converge, I can’t give you a full judgment, but what I’ve heard seemed a bit too heavy for my tastes...