who's the greatest band??

Wow I can't understand how anyone could fail to recognize the beatles contribution not only to rock & roll but to mankind. A small explain is being the first group to play before an integrated audience since reconstruction in the south. Or John and George refusing to tour the states if they were not allowed to speak freely about the vietnam war ( do you remember that war ).

Few composers have been as creative as John and Paul. Overrated ? We don't have the scale to rate them. As one Musicologist (one who studies music in rigorous academic manner) said some compositions will make the scientist "sit back in awe".



BTW
The Who today : Roger Daltrey--Vocals, Harmonica; Peter Townshend--Guitar, Vocals; Pino Palladino--Bass; John Bundrick--Keyboards; Simon Townshend--Guitars;
Zack Starkey--Drums <---- Ringo's son.

 

No one ever said they weren't a great contribution to music. The Beatles were simply over blown for what they were. I mean, how exactly was the music any more creative than the other British bands making music in America at the time? I don't understand this fascination with 4 chords and singing about peace and love,... it's good classic rock, but it doesn't measure up to some of the less highly rated musicians of other genres, most notably composers.


Beyond all of that, playing in front of an integrated crowd and simply being the Beatles is not enough to warrant being rated as highly as they are generally rated, it's just not going to cut it. Neither of those things have anything to do with their actual music. No one can be called the best artist or band of all time, but if they could be it certainly wouldn't be the Beatles, in my honest, unbiased opinion. I say unbiased as I am a fan, I simply don't believe that their music should be put on the level it's been put since the sixties ended.

 

is this musicianship greatest or infuential greatest?

As for influence wise i think it has to be beatles, tho they arent as proficient as some might lead you to believe however they did set the standard for recording quality and content accepted. They didnt freak out first, but they were most noticed most often. Not to mention they had the money to put into it.
Musicianship wise, I might have to go with some incarnation of Zappas band, or put forth Booker T and the MGs. For those of you not familiar with Booker Ts backing band, scope the resume before shooting them down.

for the person who joked about benny goodman, hes actually a nice call. Few popular artists in the 20th century broadened the scope of music more than benny. Adding Count Basie numbers to his sets when few knew of him helped change alot of the music to come after. His work with Billie Holiday is some of my fave music ever.

 

I'd assume musicianship. I don't think "influence" is really relevant in a music forum. The music is all that matters anyway. I don't purchase a C.D. to listen to "influence".

 

Dammit man, I was right with ya, through every post on this thread - up until that moment!!!! Oh, well.....

For the record, I am a huge BJ fan (BON JOVI ! ), but I wouldn't say they are "the greatest band". Dunno if I could even pick a greatest band, but I think Rolling Stones have got to be contenders.

 

actually, if you read biographies and the like of a ton of bands, they will list the beatles as an influence. i know that not every god damned band was influenced by them but a whole hell of a lot were.
oh and laugh all you want musicman. you'll just be laughing alone... why are you always so cynical to other people? i've noticed this in more than three threads. you always have to make fun of other people to make yourself seem more intelligent and "worldly". do you get off to that or what? i mean, yeah you are a good speller (YAY! A+) and you use correct grammer (YAY ANOTHER FUCKING A+) but guess what?...


NOBODY FUCKING CARES!
tah tah!

 

Hmmm perhaps the most recorded band in history - the Grateful Dead

gets my vote for sure

 

yes i must say the grateful dead follows the beatles on my list of personal favorites. also, led zeppelin.

 

I correct grammar and spelling as a device to piss off those I can't stand. You will never see me correct someone who isn't being an asshole. I let that go to the way-side. It's simply my way of giving them a big "fuck you", eh?

To you I've never done anything like that, have I? No. I wonder why that is.

What I was saying was, the Beatles weren't the end-all, be-all of the British invasion and don't deserve to be at quite the level they've been put, which, if you have been listening at all in your life, is at the level of gods, which is going way too far. Sure, a lot of bands were influenced by the Beatles, but a good 80% of those bands would still be here without the Beatles. Most of those bands were influenced by British bands who came before the Beatles. If you'd read any of my other posts in the music forum as you say you'd had, or even any of my posts in this thread, you'd realize that I'm a big fan of the Beatles. My only protest is the idea that they're the reason rock is alive today, and that they're gods. That's going too far.

 

i don't equate any musician with the status of a god. i just think it's unnecessary. i will agree with your argument and i think it can now come to an end.
the only problem i had with you is from a post you made in some random kid's story about a ups worker seeing him smoking weed. i just thought you were pretty rude to that kid. sure, he did seem immature, however, i really do not think he deserved to be called stupid or whatever.
sorry i got so angry. i'm just a little sick of cynical posters. i don't see any need for that in these forums.
anyway, buddies?

 

I don't remember that post, but all right. I'm sure I was in a bad mood or something.

Anyway, sure, buds.

 

musicman-have you ever seen phish live?

 

Yes, I was pretty much dragged to a concert in Memphis,... how is this going to lead to them being the greatest band, exactly?

 

Someone here has no clue how the brit invasion came about. If The Beatles hadnt done what they did before anyone even heard the first recording, the British Invasion would have consisted of alot of folk music. Before the Beatles played Hamburg the first time, most brit bands were still using washboard as an instrument.

A handful of people try new things in music, the vast majority dont. A few people de become popular, the vast majority dont. The Beatles did both.

 

Samson, Smith Larson, the Tornados, the Shadows and a lot of other British rock groups made it big before 1963, which is when the "I Want to Hold Your Hand" marketing ploy came to be. The Beatles did not start the British invasion. The Beatles were instrumental in the ability of thousands of British acts' ability after 1963 (who were already selling plenty in Britain) to sell records in the United States, but they did not start the invasion, they weren't the first British rock band to sell records in America, and the invasion would have taken place without the Beatles, simply at a much smaller scale. The second invasion would have happened the same way. The Beatles didn't have anything to do with Rock music taking over America, they just had something to do with the scale at which it happened. The invasion and take over was already at the spurr. There were British bands selling in America as early as 1960 who were simply covering Elvis and Bill Haley and his Comets' tunes.

 

well, if you had to be dragged, i cant see you having enjoyed them too much then.

they arent the best band because of technical skills or speed. of course there are better guitarists than trey. but they, especially trey, have a sort of style that is just...phish

 

Phish isn't a bad band, per se... I didn't make that statement. But, you have to be insane to even place them in the top 10, let alone at the level of "greatest band ever".

 

I think it all depends like BraveSirRubin was saying:

Lyric wise: Velvet Underground or Bright Eyes ( I think Conor Oberst is one of the best songwriters of all time)

If we are talking old school bands, shit there are so many: V.U., Zeppelin, The Doors, and the Stones would all get my vote.

for later bands I would say The Cure, Guns N Roses


For my generation I would have to go with H.I.M., Incubus, Nirvana, and Sliverchair.....I am basing this on how long they have been in the making, what they have accomplished, what standards they have set, their music, lyrics, etc.

10 years from now I will be naming bands like Anti-Flag, My Chemical Romance, At the Drive In...

 

and how the hell do you rate the greatest 10 bands anyway? what sort of criteria could you use? its stupid fucking question, one that only rolling stone would ever attempt and probably fail horribly.

you can have a favotire band, or you can rate the most influential band. but theres no such thing as a "best band". no fucking thing, end of story

 

Yes, I agree with you 100%. If you'd scroll back a few pages in this thread, you'll see just how much I agree. The thread has basically become a "what's your favorite band" thread.

The only thing you can legitimately gauge with music is the technical proficiency it takes to play the music, and the technical complexity of the music. In that sense the band that is more technically complex is "better" and the band that is technically more proficient in their songs is "better". The rest is all one big subjectivity. Some people like 'Jox', have chosen to interpret this as meaning that the best bands are highly technical. That's not what I mean at all. Simply, the only two things you can gauge legitimately are technical proficiency and complexity of the song writing. You can't go any further and tell someone that their opinion is "wrong". You can only gauge emotion and depth insofar as what you believe them to be, because they're not tangible, and are of a completely subject nature; to the ear of the beholder.

Therefore, the top 10 or 20 bands, legitimately judged, are the bands with the most technically complex songs and who, placed in a room, played more proficiently than the others who did not make it into the top 10. But the ones who couldn't cop a Caprice at 208 BPM may make much more meaningful art than the drone who played Paganini at concert speed and beat the other guys in technicality. As this judging is very obviously a joke way to judge art, you see how I laugh at the idea of naming a "best" in any artistic field. Best is subjective. I see Phish as being in the top 100,000 or lower, you see them as being a great band, more than likely in the top 10 or 20. My top 10 is a bit different, and what I find to be emotional and deep and hold truest is different.