Sorry to break it to him, but he is irrelevant. I seriously do not see the appeal he (or his band) holds.
Also, I would take Sufjan Stevens over him any day.

Originally Posted by xjulianx89

Just because you don't Nine Inch Nails doesn't mean they're irrelevant..

I just don't see how he has done anything great or mind blowing in recent years.

Originally Posted by Steve Henderson

Nine Inch Nails is arguably one of the most influential and relevant bands in music right now. You are pretty ignorant to think otherwise.

It's too bad they called it quits, then. Please enlighten me as to how they're relevant or influential at the moment (I'm being completely serious here). And I just find his music unpleasant.

Originally Posted by Steve Henderson

I am no huge fan of NIN's music either, but look at the facts. The band just celebrated the 20 year anniversary of Pretty Hate Machine, and they were filling arena shows. If that isn't relevant or influential, how about the fact they just used connections with fans to raise money for a patient's heart transplant? The fact they gave away The Slip for free as a thank you to fans? The purchase options for Ghosts was pretty ambitious, and the viral marketing for Year Zero was beyond the scope of any other copycat campaign that followed.

Still disagree?

While it is commendable that NIN raised money for a patient's heart transplant surgery, I do not find that much else qualifies Trent Reznor as immensely influential right now. I think that it was very big-headed of him to assume that he holds such a monumental and vital place in this world. We've seen major label, big-time performers accomplish similar things. There is nothing revolutionary about viral marketing (athough NIN did take advantage of it in a creative manner), giving away an album for free, or offering different packages for fans to choose from.

Originally Posted by BlackpoolLights

Aaaaand you just went from annoying to oblivious.

Radiology, "masterpiece" is one word, and I sincerely doubt ANYONE will be calling Veckatimest that in a decade or two. Just my opinion.

I don't think you understand the definition of "oblivious", sweetheart.

Originally Posted by BlackpoolLights

Better than you do, evidently.

:-*

Then, please, explain how my answer means that I am oblivious (and to what am I oblivious?) The fact that you call me so without elaborating makes you appear awfully foolish.