|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:38 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Magflag12 Moon
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Posts: 373
|
Post subject: Top 5 Bands of all time |
|
|
Mine is a list that I tried to create without using my favorite bands to listen to. These are bands that i believe have great musical talent and/or got a lot of publicity and such.
5. Metallica
4. Pink Floyd
3. Jimi Hendrix
2. The Beatles
1. Led Zeplin _________________ If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.
Last edited by Magflag12 on Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:25 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
palabra Ex Moderator
![](images/avatars/3517762934b8c0c9233208.jpg)
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 376 Location: right behind you
|
Post subject: |
|
|
5. Metallica
4. Brand New
3. Jimi Hendrix
2. Led Zeppelin
1. The Beatles
I would have to say no on RHCP, though I love them. They come out with music like its nothing, and the lyrics for the most part are but catchy. About Brand New, they have successfully changed genres three times. Their talent is outstanding, and the lyrics are very meaningful. Unfortunately, they are not near as popular as the others on this list.
Among hip-hop / rap, I would like to say that Kanye West and Atmosphere are the best artists
There are also some outstanding indie artists out there, but I will not bother listing them because they will be disregarded solely based on the fact that they cannot achieve enough popularity to make it big.
Music is about 25% of my life. _________________ if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:45 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Magflag12 Moon
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Posts: 373
|
Post subject: |
|
|
I see your point on RHCP. But I think RHCP is comparable to the Beatles in a small degree because the beatles were similar. There were so many songs they produced, and not all of them were that meaningful and some of them WERE just catchy, you know?
RHCP is not on my top 5 favorite bands, but I do put them on the top 5 best bands because a lot of their songs have profound significant meaning, their ability to stand out in the American pop culture (a gift the beatles had), they are likely to be the most liked band in America from the 90s to the two thousands, they have had a unique ability to maintain dominant popularity (to relative degree) from 1990 to 2009, which is longer than other bands that sold more than them such as pearl jam's dominance (1992-1999) and is actually equivelent to that of the beatles, they were the Nation's most played band from 2004-2007, they have extremely fine tuned musical talent, and much more. I wouldn't say their meanings are always great and sometimes the reason they are famous is just because of their ability to stand out (popularity thing), but that in and of itself is the reason the Beatles were dominant, in all reality they weren't that skilled, they were mainly just Icons that had a talent of getting their name out there.
As for your Brand New... I would put Brand New on my top 5 personal favorite bands, but no where close to top 5 abands ever (IMO). Their lyrics hold great value to me and their music can give me the chills, however their musical talent is not comparable to Jimi Hendrix or Metallica, and I would even put them on quite the same level talent wise as the beatles in regards to technical skill. What is more, they are not mainstream which can often hold them back (not saying it is the key factor), not many people know of them, like I am sure 50% of the people reading this do not know what the crap we are talking about. Them being unpopular does not mean they are not talented, or great artists, it just means that have yet to find means of influencing the rock industry.
Metallica started a revolution, the beatles started a revolution, Hendrix kept a standard of rock quality up, Red Hot Chilli Peppers was innovative and unique and started a revolution, Led Zeplin did most of those things while showing supreme musical talent. Brand New may be great writers and performers, but they haven't influenced rock, in my opinion, which is what I think the criteria for 'Best Band Ever' should hav... You know?
As for the beatles being #1... No way dude, they were probably the most influential in the pop world, but their influence on Rock did not need them specifically such as Jimi Hendrix or even Metallica in some instances had, and furthermore there Musical Technical Talent is likely to be last on both of our lists... There performance skill does make up for it though.
Music is only 3% of my life, maybe a bit more, but 3% is a lot of life. _________________ If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:09 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
palabra Ex Moderator
![](images/avatars/3517762934b8c0c9233208.jpg)
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 376 Location: right behind you
|
Post subject: |
|
|
RHCP LOL
#41 here on a very well thought-out rating system:
http://www.avrev.com/top-100-bands-of-all-time/top-10-rock-bands/index.php
I should not have to say anything in defense of the Beatles.
Here is another article that you should read- it expresses much of my view about the Beatles:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595384/
I do understand and agree with much of what you say about Brand New, but I would say that they have an immense amount of talent. If anything should hold them back, it should be lack of mainstream popularity and not talent. You make a good point about the other bands' ability to start a revolution. _________________ if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:46 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Magflag12 Moon
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Posts: 373
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah actually looking at that list is what influenced me to do this... I had seen it in the first place.
The problem that I saw with that list... mind you this just my own opinion I am not saying that I right its just opinion... but what I saw wrong was there were about 3-4 categories that I did not agree should be a factor. Such as Live Performance... maybe that should factor in to other things such as Likability or Charisma or something, but for it to be a factor of its own I think is too limiting. I also felt that consistency was a little flawed. RHCP got 29 points out of 50 for consistency whereas Jimi Hendrix got like a 48... Jimi Hendrix band was around for like 6 years (Jimi Hendrix himself was around longer, but the Jimi Hendrix experience was short)... I think that consistency was based off, to them, who became popular than become unpopular. So, if a band had a short lived life (as in disbanned early) but was popular during that tiem they got a good score. Absurd, a lot of bands do that, have one hit wonders and then disban... its not influential.
I also disagreed with "random play" entirely. Ridiculous, that goes along side of popularity in some degree, but in no way can be used as a single point factor for a band's rating. Also, whats more, is that how the crap did they come up with that judgement? Did they do a survey of ipods or did the judge just grab his ipod... Just seemed sketchy... whats more is how the crap did RHCP get 29 out of 50 whereas jimmi hendrix got 42? Absurd to think that more people listen to Jimmi Hendrix than do RHCP on an IPOD...
Disagreed with the U.S. sales to an extent. I think limiting it to U.S. was stupid... Unless of course your just saying Top American bands... which is obviously not the case. I think the it should have been U.S. and Non-American sales AND should be proportional... What I mean by that is that bands like the beatles have sold more because of the time factor (50 years) whereas newerd bands may be just as influential, but haven't been around long enough. In which case RHCP would not and should not have received a 63 for sales... 63???!!!??? Are you kidding
I think that the best scale to make would include this factors (out of 100 or 50)
Innovation(1-100)
Overall Proportional Sales(1-75)
Technical Ability(1-100)
Ability to Standout/Charisma (1-90)
Influence over the rock industry (1-100)
Song Writing (1-100)
Brand new did not even make that list you mentioned, so take that into consideration when you LOL RHCP. _________________ If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:22 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
palabra Ex Moderator
![](images/avatars/3517762934b8c0c9233208.jpg)
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 376 Location: right behind you
|
Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with some of what you say.... though live performance is important, maybe just not as important as they made it
i wish they could have made the sales section more proportional as well, and more world-wide. random play is stupid yes, but even among the other categories, RHCP does not do as well.
i know Brand New is not on the list. i was going out on a bit of a limb to put brand new on the list, but i think that they are one of the best bands of all time. i really do. that is just my opinion.
what did you think about the article that listed the beatles as #1? _________________ if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:55 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Magflag12 Moon
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Posts: 373
|
Post subject: |
|
|
I kind of skimmed the other article. I will say this.
First: Read this, "The Beatles are unquestionably the best and most important band in rock history, as well as the most compelling story. Almost miraculously, they embodied the apex of the form artistically, commercially, culturally and spiritually at just the right time, the tumultuous '60s, when music had the power to literally change the world (or at least to give the impression that it could, which may be the same thing). The Beatles are the archetype: there is no term in the language analogous to “Beatlemania.”
Using the word 'unquestionably' is bogus. I agree that they arrived at the most convenient time, but that goes to show that there is indeed a luck aspect to pop culture performances. Thats just show biz.
The article goes on to share the most popular hits they had. It used examples like Twist and Shout and such... It mentioned some of the more artistic popular ones, but my main problem with the the whole article is their constant reference to 'beatlemania'. That word pisses me off. The article basically labeled the Beatles as a time era. I don't think thats good to do nor is it accurate. You saw a lot of bands emerge from that era, great ones, and so to calle it the beatle era just because they were the most popular is unfair to the rock industry. The Beatles had the influence over the mass of people, but you saw people like Led Zeplin emerged in the midst of the Beatle's craze and eventually became the biggest band in the world knocking the beatles off their throne. Using the term beatlemania essentially points out the fact that there was a fad-like nature to the beatles... I think that is bad. Yes the beatles are classic and are timeless, but if you'll notice the real timeless songs are songs like Hey Jude and Let it Be, which were not favorites early on, and songs like Twist and Shout are just played at old people parties so that old people can remenscint (slaughtered that word but im lazy tonight) on the days of their youth.
Lastly, the article was from MSNBC... nuff said.
RHCP did not do well on that site but think about it really. a 63 for song writing???? waaaaaaah? They have wrote the most songs out of any band of the 90s/00s that ended up being hits. Whats more, they have the same quality of beatle songs in that some of their songs are poppy and catchy, and some of them are meaningful and deep.
RHCP scored 59 on technical skill..... WAAAAAAH.... we are talking about the lead singer who was accepted to Juliard, they guy who can write music impromptu style. The main guitarist that has 10 albums under his own name (outside of RHCP and in RHCP) he can sing as shown in his personal albums, but focuses on his guitar improv.
RHCP scored 29 on live.... WAAAAAAAAAAAH??? We are talking about the biggest live performances on consecutive nights here (RHCP). What is more is that their most unique quality is their very own live performances that pride themselves on improvisation that most bands do not ever attempt.
RHCP scored low on innovation.... BULLCRAP... I think RHCP is the first legit rock band to incorporate American pop culture, real rock, and good songs since the Beatles, and what is more, they have traveled with a larger diversity of bands than any other band from the 90s and 00s and the list includes Pearl Jam and Evenescence who were not the main band of the show... it was RHCP... That shows you that other bands want to follow their suit because they are hot and that their innovation (improve live) and unique charisma is influencing the rock industry.
That avrey.com was off key in my opinion. _________________ If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:22 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
palabra Ex Moderator
![](images/avatars/3517762934b8c0c9233208.jpg)
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 376 Location: right behind you
|
Post subject: |
|
|
About RHCP, I will give you a little slack, but not much. I do not completely agree with AVRey, but it certainly has great merit. The 5 judges for the AVRey list are 5 professionals, so I will trust their judgment for the most part on song writing, technical skill, live performance, and innovation.
I love the band. Honestly I do, but they are not one of the best 5 bands of all time. I saw them live in Dallas, and it was a really good show, but it did not blow me out of the water. I like many of their songs, and will continue to listen. Listing top bands, I might put them around 15.
Another thing to consider is that maybe you lost some ability to judge rationally in that you were "pissed off" by a word that you could not handle. It is easy to let your emotions cloud your judgment. There was indeed "beatlemania" during this time. For the first time in the history of the world, millions of people LOVED a band. The Beatles came around at a time when no other seriously great bands had emerged. They did everything they did for the first time. The other bands in the picture here are extremely original as well, but the Beatles preempt the others by some years. They GREATLY overshadowed everyone other artist during the time they were popular.
The Beatles did it all first, and that is part of what makes them so great. Yes, they were catchy as well, but they demonstrated an ability to write catchy and meaningfully at the same time. They achieved their popularity during a time which had less radio broadcast, less television broadcast, and no internet. There was no way to illegally download the Beatles off of Limewire. They also led solo careers after the band broke up, and they were very successful as well.
I will argue about Brand New, but The Beatles are not coming off of the #1 spot for me. _________________ if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:26 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
palabra Ex Moderator
![](images/avatars/3517762934b8c0c9233208.jpg)
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 376 Location: right behind you
|
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:31 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
palabra Ex Moderator
![](images/avatars/3517762934b8c0c9233208.jpg)
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 376 Location: right behind you
|
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:05 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Magflag12 Moon
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Posts: 373
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Ok I see what your saying, and all of this does come down to opinion.
The reason RHCP did not blow your socks off in Dallas was because the band was having a hard time getting used to the force outside of gravity that was pulling them into the garbage. That is to say Dallas sucks. JK
RHCP is not even on my top 12 bands to listen to, I like them, its just I see them as the modern beatles, or the closest thign to that. I think it is most likely that it is because I am so young that I salute such a concept, I desire for my generation of music to hold the same timeless concept that the beatles had. RHCP is something that might leave my list, and I would easily say that almost anyone else would disagree with me that RHCP deserves to be on the top 5. I just have this feeling about RHCP that is not neccesarily a derivative from me liking them, because I don't like them all that much, rather a feeling that I get when I hear the word RHCP.
Your list is legit (aside from Brand New IMO) I am not surprised to see any of those names on there and I agree they are legends and/or important bands. I just wish you would switch Led Zeplin with the Beatles at least lol.
As for the beatles being the first band to be loved, I do see that, I got you on that one. But, I will say, that Pop Culture that could foster 'LOVED' bands did not come around until the late 50s. You started seeing that rock and roll phase and by 1960 pop culture went from listening to Country or Vocal to WATCHING Rock and Roll rock socks off. I think that the Beatles were just one band that had the charisma to do what it takes to be loved that got going at just the right time. If I went back in time and shot alll the beatles before they even known, I would be willing to bet that another Icon would sweep in and we would be talking about, not the beatles, but the 'dungbeatles' or something. That goes to show you that Pop and rock did not need the Beatles, rather the Beatles needed the timing of transition of pop. _________________ If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:16 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
palabra Ex Moderator
![](images/avatars/3517762934b8c0c9233208.jpg)
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 376 Location: right behind you
|
Post subject: |
|
|
you cannot shoot the beatles because they are pretty much dead
nice try though _________________ if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:17 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
palabra Ex Moderator
![](images/avatars/3517762934b8c0c9233208.jpg)
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 376 Location: right behind you
|
Post subject: |
|
|
also, i think at some point next semester, we should take a trip to mexico, and find some internet there
we will take my laptop, and then play GM. that way, i can change my signature to say 5 countries instead of 4 _________________ if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:02 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Magflag12 Moon
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Posts: 373
|
Post subject: |
|
|
"You cannot shoot the beatles because they are pretty much dead..."
Talk about missing the mark buddy, totally off key and whats more, it wasn't even accurate.
You were talking literally, and you said pretty much dead, but the beatles are dead... John Ringo and Paul McCaurtney are alive and kickin all in well, but screw me sideways if the beatles are alive in ANY sense.
Clearly I was saying that if I could go back in time and shoot the beatles (in the 1960s) that another band wuold have replaced them... Gotta work on understanding inferences like that.
Mexico is overrated, their economy is really killing the U.S.'s economy. I vote we go to mexico not for internet, but to bail out the companies there so that America isn't getting so screwed. _________________ If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:06 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Yiles Moon
![](images/avatars/39122456149d401f642a65.gif)
Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Posts: 441
|
Post subject: |
|
|
5. Pink Floyd
4. Jimi Hendrix Experience
3. Earth, Wind and Fire
2. Steely Dan
1. Bob Marley and The Wailers |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
|
|