Greatest Band of All Time

[Clark]

Just to clarify, Brand New is my favorite band. While you can certainly include which of the three is your favorite as one of many factors in your decision, I'm not asking which of the three is your favorite.

Also, yes, I know it's blasphemy that I didn't include:
Pink Floyd
The Rolling Stones
The Who
U2
Nirvana
etc.

But, honestly, when comparing popularity, fan base, critical acclaim, and importance, I don't think any other bands can quite compare.

[voncorn]

Bring Me The Horizon

[Clark]

Needs moar votes.

[MADSTA]

:yawn:

[IWasaCamera]

Zeppelin? Radiohead? What?

[Clark]

:yawn:
You look tired. Go take a nap.

Zeppelin? Radiohead? What?
...Go on.

[_><_]

Radiohead ? Seriously ?

[briewer]

Talking Heads.

And it would have blasphemy if you had included Nirvana or U2.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

i have said before these are the three best bands of all time. thank you.

[fightinirish217]

The Beatles and only The Bealtes.

[FueledByRock]

The Beatles will most definitely win, but I think that Zeppelin is the best of the three.

[murrich]

The Rolling Stones definitely had more popularity, a bigger fan base, more critical acclaim, and were more important than Pink Floyd.

[BulleTheory]

The Rolling Stones definitely had more popularity, a bigger fan base, more critical acclaim, and were more important than Pink Floyd.
i strongly disagree.

[Clark]

i have said before these are the three best bands of all time. thank you.
High five.

Anyone that bitches about Radiohead hasn't listened to them enough (or at all).

And Led Zeppelin is the epitome of rock and roll, I don't see how anyone can complain about my selection of them.

Of course, I think The Beatles will always hold the number one spot.

[TangledUp]

The Beatles, hands down. That's not to say I don't adore Zeppelin, too.

[Jaimehere]

picked The Beatles, not a fan, but I know how important all their albums were to the development and inspiration of the current artists old and new

[hells army]

Just to clarify, Brand New is my favorite band. While you can certainly include which of the three is your favorite as one of many factors in your decision, I'm not asking which of the three is your favorite.

Also, yes, I know it's blasphemy that I didn't include:
Pink Floyd
The Rolling Stones
The Who
U2
Nirvana
etc.

But, honestly, when comparing popularity, fan base, critical acclaim, and importance, I don't think any other bands can quite compare.


you did not include metallica.

[Clark]

picked The Beatles, not a fan, but I know how important all their albums to the development and inspiration of the current artists old and new
Props.

you did not include metallica.
That's a good one.

[flks511]

Out of these three, Radiohead.

[dignan]

what the fuck qualifies as modern history? 3 choices? stupid poll. radiohead doesn't come close to Beatles or Zeppelin.

throw in Pink Floyd, the Stones, Elvis, Dylan, and Neil Young if you are gonna talk great rock n roll.

[blue_bedlight]

I really don't like The Beatles. Not saying they weren't important. Just saying I don't like them. Or Zeppelin. Therefore I went with Radiohead.

[Un'Aria Ancora]

replace zeppelin with pink floyd and it's official.

[IWasaCamera]

...Go on.
What???
Anyone that bitches about Radiohead hasn't listened to them enough (or at all).
What a silly statement.
Led Zeppelin is the epitome of rock and roll
How so?

[Radiology]

understanding that there are obvious factors such as the time period in which the band was making music, technology, etc, with those things aside Radiohead is the most innovative, creative, genius tour-de-force that has come to "modern" rock history. The Beatles are an obvious answer due to everything that was occurring in the 1960's and the fact that it was the turning point in rock music, however if you look at their music in context to other music at their time they weren't that far out there from bands such as The Beach Boys, Hendrix, etc etc. Radiohead for the 1990's and 2000's have been COMPLETELY out of the element of what music "should sound like", they have taken far bigger risks and really broke the mold.

[Clark]

what the fuck qualifies as modern history?
Modern history is commonly understood to be post-World War II. Jackass.

3 choices? stupid poll. radiohead doesn't come close to Beatles or Zeppelin.

throw in Pink Floyd, the Stones, Elvis, Dylan, and Neil Young if you are gonna talk great rock n roll.
Holy fuck, read the first post.

understanding that there are obvious factors such as the time period in which the band was making music, technology, etc, with those things aside Radiohead is the most innovative, creative, genius tour-de-force that has come to "modern" rock history. The Beatles are an obvious answer due to everything that was occurring in the 1960's and the fact that it was the turning point in rock music, however if you look at their music in context to other music at their time they weren't that far out there from bands such as The Beach Boys, Hendrix, etc etc. Radiohead for the 1990's and 2000's have been COMPLETELY out of the element of what music "should sound like", they have taken far bigger risks and really broke the mold.
Good post. Except for the statement of Radiohead taking bigger risks than The Beatles. That's just not true.

[phil19]

beatles

[Robb]

The Beatles are an obvious answer due to everything that was occurring in the 1960's and the fact that it was the turning point in rock music, however if you look at their music in context to other music at their time they weren't that far out there from bands such as The Beach Boys, Hendrix, etc etc. Radiohead for the 1990's and 2000's have been COMPLETELY out of the element of what music "should sound like", they have taken far bigger risks and really broke the mold.

Risks? The Beatles stopped touring at a level of popularity no other band has ever reached, because they wanted to write better albums.

As far as them being on par with their musical "peers", the futility of trying to write an album comparable to Sgt Pepper is one of the main reasons for Brian Wilson's breakdown.

[just.Starla.]

The Beatles.

[Theseventhson]

The Beatles. But the real answer was the Sonic Youth.

[Feenucks]

The Beatles and only The Bealtes.

This and This.

[wuduprod]

not to take anything away from the other two bands, but it isn't even fair to compare them to the beatles. voting for anything else is wrong.

[AussieBoy]

led zeppelin of those

black sabbath for influence on metal!

[murrich]

The Velvet Underground.

[Clark]

not to take anything away from the other two bands, but it isn't even fair to compare them to the beatles. voting for anything else is wrong.
Haha. I agree, yet many people have voted for the other two options.

And despite the first post of the thread, people have bitched about the choices and posted such laughable suggestions as Sonic Youth.

[princesschad]

great poll.

[Alex DiVincenzo]

Zeppelin. Greatest band of all time.

[Dymytry Vance]

Bring Me The Horizon
There was a time (my four and a half mone scenecore phase) where I adored that band. The only reason I wear the band shirt I have from them is because it's so comfortable. Like making love for the very first time. Oh Christian camp.

[Dymytry Vance]

Five way tie for me between GY!BE, TNTLLY, CTTS, CoC, and Minus The Bear.
I will get shit on for this list, I am aware.

[Dymytry Vance]

Oh, and if you say the beatles you are wrong.

[Dymytry Vance]

Poll=fail. Where is the moderator when you need him?

[murrich]

Five way tie for me between GY!BE, TNTLLY, CTTS, CoC, and Minus The Bear.
I will get shit on for this list, I am aware.

Oh, and if you say the beatles you are wrong.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah aHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha

[GamEin]

Kind of an oddly grouped list. The Beatles, though.

[Say Nothing]

you did not include metallica.
That's because Metallica couldn't lick the ballsack of any of those bands. Although I am a Metallica fan, I will be the first to admit that they can only appeal to one audience. The other bands listed can appeal to nearly anyone. And as far as musical talent is concerned, none of the members have anything on a Radiohead/Zeppelin/Beatles/Rush/Pink Floyd.

PS- Tell Lars to get a new drumset

[Say Nothing]

Talking Heads.

And it would have blasphemy if you had included Nirvana or U2.
This^^^
Even though I enjoy both of those bands, neither of them have anything on the other bands listed

[Say Nothing]

other: Modest Mouse
Speaking of MM, I saw them in Columbus in August
Show= 8================================== ====================D----------------------------------------

[dookiedog]

Brokencyde...LOL

[DeadCityScars]

modern history...? radiohead

[x13looDx]

radiohead sucks, not a big fan of the beatles but their influence and talent cannot be denied

[Say Nothing]

Five way tie for me between GY!BE, TNTLLY, CTTS, CoC, and Minus The Bear.
I will get shit on for this list, I am aware.

gtfo...

[sweepthenation]

You left out Queen. Shame on you

[murrich]

radiohead sucks, not a big fan of the beatles but their influence and talent cannot be denied

Favorite Bands
Dry Kill Logic, Saosin, Mayday Parade, Lamb Of God, Killswitch Engage, The Used, Eighteen Visions, Sum 41, Submersed, Secondhand Serenade, Just Surrender, All Time Low

Oh ok.

[Clark]

I do love Rush and Queen.

And for people suggesting bands such as Modest Mouse... Seriously? I love Modest Mouse, but come on.

[MyNameIsRoss]

Bob Dylan is the greatest modern songwriter.

[radxbandit]

Just to clarify, Brand New is my favorite band. While you can certainly include which of the three is your favorite as one of many factors in your decision, I'm not asking which of the three is your favorite.

Also, yes, I know it's blasphemy that I didn't include:
Pink Floyd
The Rolling Stones
The Who
U2
Nirvana
etc.

But, honestly, when comparing popularity, fan base, critical acclaim, and importance, I don't think any other bands can quite compare.

Aside from critical acclaim, which might be about equal, Radiohead has less of all of that than the other bands that you listed in this post. Seriously, dude, what?

[introduction]

1. beatles
2. queen
5. radiohead

my opinion.

[Clark]

Aside from critical acclaim, which might be about equal, Radiohead has less of all of that than the other bands that you listed in this post. Seriously, dude, what?
Their critical acclaim probably would only fall short to The Beatles. They're not a mainstream band, but they're insanely popular in an underground sense with an amazingly strong and loyal fanbase. Good tickets to their shows sell out instantly (I would know, I tried to buy some last time they played in Dallas).

[Formatfun]

The Beatles... I could never get into Radiohead or Zeppelin. But The Beatles dominated my 2007, nearly.

[jesse_hitz]

Musically Zeppelin is far superour than any band out there today. However the popularity of the beatles will triumph but also because they wrote timeless classic amazing songs. Although my vote goes to Zeppelin with beatles coming in very close second.

[TheClockSounds]

Beatles because well it's the beatles

[Neo Cassady]

...the fuck is Radiohead even doing in this poll?

[FueledByRock]

...the fuck is Radiohead even doing in this poll?

I was wondering this too.

[NateGolubiewski]

This was already a poll, sans Radiohead I believe.Beatles though.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

...the fuck is Radiohead even doing in this poll?

without a doubt the most musically creative and diverse band of the last 20- 30 years. they are galaxies in front of any other group out there at the moment. they aren't my favorite band by any means, but can you think of a better alt act currently active?

[Clark]

without a doubt the most musically creative and diverse band of the last 20- 30 years. they are galaxies in front of any other group out there at the moment. they aren't my favorite band by any means, but can you think of a better act currently active?
Fixed.

[Metal Now]

All great bands, but The Beatles by far.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Fixed.

i wanted to say that, but felt it might be too bold of a statement. looking back on it i should have just gone for it, huh?

[And Hours Pass]

what the fuck qualifies as modern history? 3 choices? stupid poll. radiohead doesn't come close to Beatles or Zeppelin.

throw in Pink Floyd, the Stones, Elvis, Dylan, and Neil Young if you are gonna talk great rock n roll.

Was with you until you put Neil Young in that list. He does not come close to comparing to the other bands you mentioned (or the beatles & zeppelin).

understanding that there are obvious factors such as the time period in which the band was making music, technology, etc, with those things aside Radiohead is the most innovative, creative, genius tour-de-force that has come to "modern" rock history. The Beatles are an obvious answer due to everything that was occurring in the 1960's and the fact that it was the turning point in rock music, however if you look at their music in context to other music at their time they weren't that far out there from bands such as The Beach Boys, Hendrix, etc etc. Radiohead for the 1990's and 2000's have been COMPLETELY out of the element of what music "should sound like", they have taken far bigger risks and really broke the mold.

Seriously? You need to read more about the beatles if you honestly think radiohead has taken risks anywhere close to what the beatles did. I'm not even that big of a beatles fan but I read several of their biographies because I'm a fan of music and found it important. Check some of them out. I think you may change your mind.

Risks? The Beatles stopped touring at a level of popularity no other band has ever reached, because they wanted to write better albums.

As far as them being on par with their musical "peers", the futility of trying to write an album comparable to Sgt Pepper is one of the main reasons for Brian Wilson's breakdown.

I've actually heard this before. Crazy to think that one great record gave way to the breakdown of a great songwriter.


Oh, and if you say the beatles you are wrong.

Poll=fail. Where is the moderator when you need him?

You = fail.

Aside from critical acclaim, which might be about equal, Radiohead has less of all of that than the other bands that you listed in this post. Seriously, dude, what?

Thank you. What the hell is radiohead doing here?

Their critical acclaim probably would only fall short to The Beatles. They're not a mainstream band, but they're insanely popular in an underground sense with an amazingly strong and loyal fanbase. Good tickets to their shows sell out instantly (I would know, I tried to buy some last time they played in Dallas).

Everything you just said also rings true for Dave Matthews Band. Where are they on your list? Oh right, they don't belong there. Neither does Radiohead.

[zachff]

Quite the arbitrary trio of bands here

[Clark]

Everything you just said also rings true for Dave Matthews Band. Where are they on your list? Oh right, they don't belong there. Neither does Radiohead.
Not true at all. Dave Matthews Band is popular, but they are not acclaimed critically. At all.

[dignan]

Was with you until you put Neil Young in that list. He does not come close to comparing to the other bands you mentioned (or the beatles & zeppelin).


you're crazy. Neil Young is legendary. he's one of the greatest rock musicians of all time. what planet do you come from?

[And Hours Pass]

Not true at all. Dave Matthews Band is popular, but they are not acclaimed critically. At all.

At all? They are critically acclaimed as one of the best, most successful touring bands right now. The voting population for the Grammy's features many critics and DMB has been nominated 13 times. I'm not saying they're the best band, but to say they're acclaim and success in comparison to Radiohead makes radiohead any more deserving to be on this list is ridiculous. They both have no place on this list.

you're crazy. Neil Young is legendary. he's one of the greatest rock musicians of all time. what planet do you come from?

Mars. He sounds like a squeeling cat when he sings. I love the work he did with CSNY, but I just don't think he should make a top 5 list of the greatest bands/musicians of all time. objectively, he wouldn't make a top ten.

[dignan]

At all? They are critically acclaimed as one of the best, most successful touring bands right now. The voting population for the Grammy's features many critics and DMB has been nominated 13 times. I'm not saying they're the best band, but to say they're acclaim and success in comparison to Radiohead makes radiohead any more deserving to be on this list is ridiculous. They both have no place on this list.



Mars. He sounds like a squeeling cat when he sings. I love the work he did with CSNY, but I just don't think he should make a top 5 list of the greatest bands/musicians of all time. objectively, he wouldn't make a top ten.

and Robert Plant doesn't sound ridiculous when he sings? Bob Dylan?

[Clark]

That brings up another thing. I specifically used the word band to eliminate single artists. So Elvis, Dylan, Young, etc. are all excluded from this.

[Brokenhill]

i strongly disagree.

I strongly agree with you.

I voted for The Beatles, even though I don't like them much. However, overall...Pink Floyd trumps all of these. Variety, originality, writing, composition, impact, longevity, the legend of Syd Barrett, etc.

[kbi the crowing]

Bring Me The Horizon

hahaha greatest first response that could've been posted

[kbi the crowing]

Five way tie for me between GY!BE, TNTLLY, CTTS, CoC, and Minus The Bear.
I will get shit on for this list, I am aware.

it makes me sad to know that I share some of your tastes =[

[And Hours Pass]

and Robert Plant doesn't sound ridiculous when he sings? Bob Dylan?
Robert Plant is stronger in his range than Neil Young and Bob Dylan is not known for his singing but his absolutely phenomenal lyrics. You don't think you may have difficulty viewing this objectively as you're from Alabama...? I don't mean that in a bad way, I'm just saying it might be difficult to see it objectively as Neil's HUGE down there.

[Dymytry Vance]

it makes me sad to know that I share some of your tastes =[
Do we agree that The Blood Bros. were overrated? I haven't found anyone who does, just a bunch of "Love Rhymes With Hideous Car Wreck Brah!" people trolling.

[kbi the crowing]

Do we agree that The Blood Bros. were overrated. I haven't found anyone who does, just a bunch of "Love Rhymes With Hideous Car Wreck Brah!" people trolling.

I only listened to their first album and disliked it so I don't know
I was making reference to godspee you!, #12, and Minus the Bear

[Indoor Living]

There was a time (my four and a half mone scenecore phase) where I adored that band. The only reason I wear the band shirt I have from them is because it's so comfortable. Like making love for the very first time. Oh Christian camp.

You're 15. You mean right now.

Five way tie for me between GY!BE, TNTLLY, CTTS, CoC, and Minus The Bear.
I will get shit on for this list, I am aware.

This isn't a joke, which makes it funny. Oh, irony.

Oh, and if you say the beatles you are wrong.

You're 15. Stop.

Poll=fail. Where is the moderator when you need him?

Quadruple post=fail. I'm wondering the same thing.

If you haven't noticed, I don't like you. I know I'm not alone. Don't be stupid.


Oh....and, The Beatles.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

You're 15. You mean right now.



This isn't a joke, which makes it funny. Oh, irony.



You're 15. Stop.



Quadruple post=fail. I'm wondering the same thing.

If you haven't noticed, I don't like you. I know I'm not alone. Don't be stupid.


Oh....and, The Beatles.


win.

[nerdvglc]

yawn on the poll OP. and my thread was deleted in 5 minutes, but i think it was more original than this.

[dartanian=gods]

If the Beatles never existed these other two bands would never have existed.

[1CujoFan]

High five.

Anyone that bitches about Radiohead hasn't listened to them enough (or at all).

And Led Zeppelin is the epitome of rock and roll, I don't see how anyone can complain about my selection of them.

Of course, I think The Beatles will always hold the number one spot.

Seems I can't make it through one of their songs without falling asleep. Most boring, overrated, over-acclaimed band in existence.

[Clark]

Seems I can't make it through one of their songs without falling asleep. Most boring, overrated, over-acclaimed band in existence.
I'm going to just attribute this to you being 16 years old instead of pointing out how you're a complete moron.

[ActorInThisPlay]

I wanna know how Radiohead would qualify for this but Pink Floyd wouldn't.

[Ryzenfall]

Attention AP. The answer is The Beatles. Can we stop having these polls.

[Yellowcard2006]

Anyone that bitches about Radiohead hasn't listened to them enough (or at all).



I always say the same thing about Fall Out Boy

I voted The Beatles

[murrich]

without a doubt the most musically creative and diverse band of the last 20- 30 years. they are galaxies in front of any other group out there at the moment. they aren't my favorite band by any means, but can you think of a better alt act currently active?

http://ventvox.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tom_waits_c_anton_corbijn.jpg

Was with you until you put Neil Young in that list. He does not come close to comparing to the other bands you mentioned (or the beatles & zeppelin).



You sir, are an idiot.

[Broclee]

What?

[And Hours Pass]

http://ventvox.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tom_waits_c_anton_corbijn.jpg



You sir, are an idiot.
With an argument like that, it's hard for me to disagree. Of course had you actually explained how there's a snowball's chance in hell that Neil Young is on the same level as the beatles... that might have been more effective.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Seems I can't make it through one of their songs without falling asleep. Most boring, overrated, over-acclaimed band in existence.

when i am king, you will be first against the wall.

[murrich]

With an argument like that, it's hard for me to disagree. Of course had you actually explained how there's a snowball's chance in hell that Neil Young is on the same level as the beatles... that might have been more effective.

I don't think he's as big or influential as the Beatles, but I think he's a lot more influential than the other contenders.

Wikipedia explains his influence better than I would. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_young#Influence.2C_importance_ and_inspiration

[BulleTheory]

I wanna know how Radiohead would qualify for this but Pink Floyd wouldn't.
i was wondering this too. i dont care what these people think, pink floyd is light years beyond radiohead and always will be.

[Say Nothing]

when i am king, you will be first against the wall.

Hahahaha THIS

[1CujoFan]

I'm going to just attribute this to you being 16 years old instead of pointing out how you're a complete moron.
lol. I'm just going to point out how weak your Ad Hominem argument is.

[And Hours Pass]

I don't think he's as big or influential as the Beatles, but I think he's a lot more influential than the other contenders.

Wikipedia explains his influence better than I would. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_young#Influence.2C_importance_ and_inspiration
I'm not debating that he's influential, but that wikipedia section doesn't justify his placement above zeppelin. Zeppelin sold over 85 million albums in the US alone. They have been cited as huge influences on tons of bands (ranging from Foo Fighters to Van Halen to Pearl Jam to Lynyrd Skynyrd). The paragraph for Neil Young's influence in Wikipedia is far from convincing that he is more influential than Zeppelin.

[f00te]

how is radiohead in the same conversation with The Beatles and Zeppelin?

[IceAge/HeatWave]

how is radiohead in the same conversation with The Beatles and Zeppelin?

because they, like the other bands in the poll, are a mindfuck.

[honkyg88]

Zeppelin

[VIVALAMATT]

Funny....

The Beatles is without a doubt the winner, but I wouldn't have Zeppelin or Radiohead as #2 or #3

[Cøltøn]

None of the above.

[yayitsjoe]

i'm tired of hearing about Radiohead. OK Computer is apparently their best album. it's good. it's not mind-blowing.

[IWasaCamera]

without a doubt the most musically creative band of the last 20- 30 years.
Substantiate this claim. What makes Radiohead "galaxies" ahead of the IDM, krautrock, and ambient bands they took cues from on their most interesting work? And what about acts such as Sonic Youth, Talking Heads, Jandek, The Jesus And Mary Chain, Talk Talk, The Pop Group, etc.? I'd say you're talking entirely out of your ass.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Substantiate this claim. What makes Radiohead "galaxies" ahead of the IDM, krautrock, and ambient bands they took cues from on their most interesting work? And what about acts such as Sonic Youth, Talking Heads, Jandek, The Jesus And Mary Chain, Talk Talk, The Pop Group, etc.? I'd say you're talking entirely out of your ass.

for starters, radiohead completely reinvents themselves with every release. as someone who has listened to a lot of krautrock, sonic youth and talking heads, i can say that this gives radiohead the one up. radiohead refuses to set on a certain style, with the exception of kid a and amnesiac which were written at the same time together.

then you have the fact that most "ambient bands" lose their accessibility. however, radiohead manages to sound completely unlike any other band (if you can give me a few names of groups i haven't heard in an attempt to to enlighten me, feel free to do so) while at the same time being able to connect to a much wider range of fans than the bands you mentioned.

also, i'd go as far as to say that radiohead is bigger than all of the bands you mentioned (with possible exceptions granted to sonic youth and talking heads) while at the same time being the furthest thing away from a band that sold out. there is a reason that this band impresses me more than all the other groups you bring up.

[IWasaCamera]

for starters, radiohead completely reinvents themselves with every release. as someone who has listened to a lot of krautrock, sonic youth and talking heads, i can say that this gives radiohead the one up. radiohead refuses to set on a certain style, with the exception of kid a and amnesiac which were written at the same time together.
Talking Heads, Jandek, Talk Talk, and so on did not stick with one aesthetic either.
then you have the fact that most "ambient bands" lose their accessibility. however, radiohead manages to sound completely unlike any other band (if you can give me a few names of groups i haven't heard in an attempt to to enlighten me, feel free to do so) while at the same time being able to connect to a much wider range of fans than the bands you mentioned. How does being accessible make them creative? Some would argue it detracts from that very quality.
also, i'd go as far as to say that radiohead is bigger than all of the bands you mentioned (with possible exceptions granted to sonic youth and talking heads) while at the same time being the furthest thing away from a band that sold out. there is a reason that this band impresses me more than all the other groups you bring up. Again, I fail to see how their prominence is in any way indicative of their superiority/creativity. It simply means their music appeals to a large demographic. By these criteria, I'd throw Fleetwood Mac into the mix. They're admittedly no more than a pop act, but their sound fluctuates significantly and they wrote one of the highest selling records of all time in Rumours. Where's the difference?

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Talking Heads, Jandek, Talk Talk, and so on did not stick with one aesthetic either.
How does being accessible make them creative? Some would argue it detracts from that very quality.
Again, I fail to see how their prominence is in any way indicative of their superiority/creativity. It simply means their music appeals to a large demographic. By these criteria, I'd throw Fleetwood Mac into the mix. They're admittedly no more than a pop act, but their sound fluctuates significantly and they wrote one of the highest selling records of all time in Rumours. Where's the difference?

accessibility can detract from quality if a band has to create subpar music in order to garner it. radiohead does not, and anyone who says they do is (as you would say) "talking out of their ass". but for a band to consistently find ways with every release to appeal to a wide demographic, while also creating music that sounds completely groundbreaking and galaxies beyond the talents by any other band currently active, should really be a testament to their creativity, scope and abilities.

how many mainstream acts sound like radiohead? muse and coldplay have been likened to them, but anyone with an objective listening ear can realize the substance and diversity in radiohead's catalogue that very, very, very few artists can take claim to.

in summation, some groups have to pander to audiences and reduce their creative output to the lowest common denominator in order to gain acclaim. some groups (radiohead, led zeppelin, and the beatle's being in this category) deserve all the accolades they are given and more. because some acts just deserve to be popular.

does being accessible make them creative? Some would argue it detracts from that very quality

so yeah, when radiohead's popularity detracts from their quality, you can quote me in some poll and attack me for talking out of my ass. but at this point, each release since pablo honey has been stellar.

[IWasaCamera]

accessibility can detract from quality
Creativity is the matter at hand.
radiohead does not, and anyone who says they do is (as you would say) "talking out of their ass".
While I wouldn't say they have as I find them to be a good band, if someone were to make this assertion, why would they be talking out of their ass? They'd be formulating a statement based on their personal parameters of quality by the very same token you're holding.
but for a band to consistently find ways with every release to appeal to a wide demographic, while also creating music that sounds completely groundbreaking and galaxies beyond the talents by any other band currently active, should really be a testament to their creativity, scope and abilities.
How is writing accessible songs a testament to their creativity whatsoever?
how many mainstream acts sound like radiohead?
None. When did mainstream music become the barometer with which creativity is gauged?
anyone with an objective listening ear
No such thing.
in summation, some groups have to pander to audiences and reduce their creative output to the lowest common denominator in order to gain acclaim. some groups (radiohead, led zeppelin, and the beatle's being in this category) deserve all the accolades they are given and more. because some acts just deserve to be popular.
This might as well read "The Beatles, Zeppelin, and Radiohead deserve to be popular because I say so."
so yeah, when radiohead's popularity detracts from their quality
Some say it already has.
each release since pablo honey has been stellar.
Quality was never the point of contention. It's your specious claim that they're the most creative band of the past 30 years and the subsequent arguments presented that I completely disagree with.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Creativity is the matter at hand.

creativity and accessibility and talent. three of the characteristics that make bands great.

I wouldn't say they have as I find them to be a good band, if someone were to make this assertion, why would they be talking out of their ass? They'd be formulating a statement based on their personal parameters of quality by the very same token you're holding.

you are the one who came in and said i was talking out of my ass. all i have done in this poll is agree with the op that this is one of the best groups of all time, and further support his claim by saying they are the best of the last 30 years.

how is writing accessible songs a testament to their creativity whatsoever?

because their brand of accessibility is completely unlike any other groups. you miss the point, radiohead is widely respected and popular in the music world. so are a lot of other groups. what makes them different is how they manage to do so while sounding entirely original and innovative, on top of being enjoyable to a greater number of fans than most acts.

None. When did mainstream music become the barometer with which creativity is gauged?

are you one of those people who think that anything too popular must suck? because that is the way it comes off.

furthermore, bands like the beatles, pink floyd, the who, nirvana, radiohead, and led zeppelin are all mainstream and creative. and their popularity can be attributed to their creativeness, as evidenced by the time periods that they gained acclaim and the diverseness of their sound attracting fans. i'm not saying that all mainstream acts are golden, in fact a great deal of them suck. but the same can be said of all musical genres.

No such thing.

yes there is.

This might as well read "The Beatles, Zeppelin, and Radiohead deserve to be popular because I say so."

no, they deserve to be popular because a lot of people say so, and because they are highly, highly, highly influential. for my money, radiohead, led zeppelin and the beatles have three of the, if not THE three most diverse catalogues in modern music.

Some say it already has.

some say it has not. i'd wager that most say it has not. honestly, what some say will differ on any possible topic you can imagine. so this point is entirely worthless, because anybody knows that anything is debatable. i.e; how brand new and blink-182 can rival the beatles in a poll on this website.

Quality was never the point of contention. It's your specious claim that they're the most creative band of the past 30 years and the subsequent arguments presented that I completely disagree with.

well, i obviously just differ with you here. i do not think that one band you listed earlier holds a candle to radiohead.

[liveloud4life]

Accessibility aside, Radiohead's grasp of ridiculously advanced musical theory concepts and incorporation into rock music is enough to elevate their creativity well above anything else in the current music industry.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Accessibility aside, Radiohead's grasp of ridiculously advanced musical theory concepts and incorporation into rock music is enough to elevate their creativity well above anything else in the current music industry.

this.

[IWasaCamera]

you are the one who came in and said i was talking out of my ass. all i have done in this poll is agree with the op that this is one of the best groups of all time, and further support his claim by saying they are the best of the last 30 years. You can feel they're the best band of the past 30 years all you like. I'm questioning your claim that they're the most creative band of that same period. You've yet to posit any real argument on this front.
because their brand of accessibility is completely unlike any other groups. you miss the point, radiohead is widely respected and popular in the music world. so are a lot of other groups. what makes them different is how they manage to do so while sounding entirely original and innovative, on top of being enjoyable to a greater number of fans than most acts. Many have said the exact same things about Talking Heads. Why are you right and why are they wrong?
are you one of those people who think that anything too popular must suck? because that is the way it comes off. Nearly everything I enjoy is popular to some extent.
furthermore, bands like the beatles, pink floyd, the who, nirvana, radiohead, and led zeppelin are all mainstream and creative. and their popularity can be attributed to their creativeness, as evidenced by the time periods that they gained acclaim and the diverseness of their sound attracting fans. Their popularity could have just as easily stemmed from accessibility and little more. Hard to lend credence to any of this as it's all based on conjecture.
i'm not saying that all mainstream acts are golden, in fact a great deal of them suck. but the same can be said of all musical genres. What a delightful digression.
yes there is.
No, there isn't.
no, they deserve to be popular because a lot of people say so, and because they are highly, highly, highly influential. for my money, radiohead, led zeppelin and the beatles have three of the, if not THE three most diverse catalogues in modern music. I can't bring myself to reply.
some say it has not. i'd wager that most say it has not. I fail to see how consensus has any bearing on this matter. The majority of listeners think Pet Sounds is brilliant. I do not. Why are they right? Because conventional wisdom dictates it?
well, i obviously just differ with you here. i do not think that one band you listed earlier holds a candle to radiohead. You're more than entitled to your opinion. I'd simply like you to expand on it rather than saying "Radiohead is the most creative. They're also accessible. They're like...the best."

[Brokenhill]

:27 - 1:45

KwWGZaGHrxU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwWGZaGHrxU)

[IceAge/HeatWave]

You can feel they're the best band of the past 30 years all you like. I'm questioning your claim that they're the most creative band of that same period. You've yet to posit any real argument on this front.
Many have said the exact same things about Talking Heads. Why are you right and why are they wrong?
Nearly everything I enjoy is popular to some extent.
Their popularity could have just as easily stemmed from accessibility and little more. Hard to lend credence to any of this as it's all based on conjecture.
What a delightful digression.

No, there isn't.
I can't bring myself to reply.
I fail to see how consensus has any bearing on this matter. The majority of listeners think Pet Sounds is brilliant. I do not. Why are they right? Because conventional wisdom dictates it?
You're more than entitled to your opinion. I'd simply like you to expand on it rather than saying "Radiohead is the most creative. They're also accessible. They're like...the best."

i believe they are the most creative force in music over the past 30 years because:

1.) they are entirely unique in their sound and style. no body sounds like radiohead. if you know someone who does, please message me some names.
2.) radiohead reevaluates themselves after each album, and subsequently recreate themselves in their next release in drastic fashion. this is something very few bands can afford to do.
3.) Accessibility aside, Radiohead's grasp of ridiculously advanced musical theory concepts and incorporation into rock music is enough to elevate their creativity well above anything else in the current music industry.
4.) accessibility brought back into the mix (as it should be considered), they appeal to a wider audience of fans than any other band who releases music comparable to radiohead.
5.) they maintain a signature sound throughout their experimentation. for example, the bends sounds only a little like ok computer in terms of style, which is nothing like kid a/ amnesiac, which are a great leap from hail to the thief in terms of style, which again is not a precursor to in rainbows. yet, throughout all of the stretches they make in their creative output, there is something so... radiohead... about the music. no other band accomplishes this on their level.
6.) i have not listened to one song by them that i would consider 'filler' since the bends.
7.) the sheer scope of their song catalogue encompasses more diversity than any band i have listened to. again, having listened to all of the bands you mentioned in your original post.

and as for the objective listening ear: yes there is.

[bard]

none of the bands mentioned are the greatest band of all time, because there is no greatest band of all time.

sure, you can look at sales/talent/how influential they are/etc... and kind of choose a handful of artists, but it's too conditional and easily swayed by everyone's opinions of them.

for example, i don't like radiohead. i can recognize that they are talented, but it just doesn't click with me. i know i'm in the smaller percentage of users on this site that thinks that, but it is what it is.

you can try to choose this site's favorite band (hopefully better than that "tournament" we had a few months ago), but to try to pick the greatest band of all time? that's a waste of time.

[Lightsout911X]

By virtue of influence alone, The Beatles.

[End of Disc One]

Those who say Radiohead doesn't belong in a poll with The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are under the illusion that "older=better." Yeah those bands have influenced a greater number of musicians, but give Radiohead another couple of decades and they will be right up there with them. Hell, they already have influenced a lot of bands. They are already a credibility staple for songwriters today, in that pretty much every songwriter lists them as one of their favorite bands, or will at least acknowledge that they are a great band.

[BBScience]

Radiohead on this poll over Pink Floyd? What a joke.

[Brokenhill]

Radiohead on this poll over Pink Floyd? What a joke.


Someone just needs to remake the poll already.

[Tristan Needler]

The Beatles, hands down. The other aren't even top 25 material.

[Brokenhill]

Hmm...Zeppelin is definitely arguable for top 25.

[j4callen]

Queen should be up there.

[Corgkowznor]

Modern history is commonly understood to be post-World War II. Jackass.

Who 'commonly' understands modern history to be post world war II...where are you getting that from? History was one of my majors, so I'm intrigued....

because modern history is the period after the middle ages, aka circa 1500.

I think you mean contemporary history, so you probably shouldn't call that guy a jackass.

Jackass.

[bbelair]

The Beatles, hands down. The other aren't even top 25 material.

Are you kidding? Zeppelin is definitely top 25 material.

[Tristan Needler]

Hmm...Zeppelin is definitely arguable for top 25.

Are you kidding? Zeppelin is definitely top 25 material.


I love a few of their songs, the rest I could take or leave. It's fine bluesy rock-metal, but that's really not my thing at all. I could easily come up with 25 bands that I think have more musical merit.

[Brokenhill]

I love a few of their songs, the rest I could take or leave. It's fine bluesy rock-metal, but that's really not my thing at all. I could easily come up with 25 bands that I think have more musical merit.

But that's all opinionated...if you look at it from a more objective standpoint then more credit is due. You have the fact that they are individually all technically skilled musicians according to their instrument of choice, and their collaborative musical efforts are equal to or greater than the sum of their parts. They manage to create a wide variety of sounds while having that identifiable sound overall as a group. They encompass different genres and tie them together or take bits/pieces from here and there and use it in that hard rock/heavy metal frame work. They have a lot of material with unique composition such as "Achilles Last Stand". Robert Plant has a unique voice/vocal style that also seems to fit into the music perfectly. The only issue with LZ is that they lack in the lyrical area...a lot of it is just simple love songs or a conconction of mythological material.

But to have that much music that is consistently solid (at least musically) shows how good they are overall. They've created some of the most memorable/timeless songs ("Stairway to Heaven"). And then on top of that you have influence and live performance to argue with.

[Brokenhill]

I understand how you might not like them. I don't really like The Beatles, but I recognize (at least some) of their strengths, like lyrically, or their harmonies, or whatever. I voted for them over LZ in this poll even though I enjoy LZ 100x more.

But it doesn't really matter because Pink Floyd encompasses the musical variety and even technicality (in some cases) that LZ has, with the writing of The Beatles (I would say it's better) and also has that prominence in the music culture. But then again, I haven't heard enough of The Beatles to pass a 100% solid judgement.

[Tristan Needler]

For starters, I'd put The Rolling Stones above Zeppelin in the categories you mentioned, even though I like Zeppelin better than The Stones. I'd agree that Pink Floyd should sit above most other bands, but I still feel The Beatles beat them pretty handily. I don't love Pink Floyd either.

There are so many bands that just don't get the credit due to the fact that they weren't as popular or famous. I'd say Santana was a much better band than either The Stones or Zep, along with bands like Genesis, Yes, artists like Elliott Smith and Omar Rodriguez-Lopez, and even more modern groups like Sunny Day Real Estate and Jimmy Eat World. All of those bands have all of those qualities you mentioned, in a bigger and better way, I believe, taste in the actual sound of the music aside. The only thing lacking in any of those is consistency in Genesis and Yes, since they both jumped the shark later in their careers, but in their prime I'd say they were all around, far and away better bands.

[Brokenhill]

Jimmy Eat World compares and even exceeds Led Zeppelin's musical skill and work?

[Tristan Needler]

Jimmy Eat World compares and even exceeds Led Zeppelin's musical skill and work?
Yes. How do they not?

They evolve with every release, put out music that please almost everyone from the most elitist snob to the boppiest of the teenie boppers. They craft beautiful music with beautiful lyrics (even though I don't really care about lyrics in music), they KILL every harmony, are brilliant live, are brilliant in the studio, take cues from all sorts of genres starting with SDRE/Mineral-esqu emo, to all kinds of rock, to electronic and beyond, and they have and will continue to influence so many other artists from so many other genres. If they're not the most consistently good band playing music today, then they're close. They're all great at their instruments, and are all great at putting songs and moreover whole albums together.

The one place Zeppelin probably have them beat is sheer guitar work and soloing. I feel everything else far outweighs that fact though. If we're going to say proficiency at instruments is that important, we might as well just call it for Dragonforce as the winners.

[Clark]

I love this thread. It's evoking the exact kind of outrage I expected and even acknowledged would occur in the first post disclaimer (which, it appears, most people completely skipped or ignored).

Everyone has a different opinion. In my opinion, these are the three greatest bands of all time. (And, too much chagrin from all the Radiohead haters, I'd order them 1. The Beatles, 2. Radiohead, 3. Led Zeppelin.)

Regardless, this poll has caused some solid, heated debate. For those of you who are complaining rather than joining in: instead of bitching about the poll, why don't you tell us who you think history's greatest bands are and why?

Or continue to be a bunch of shitheads. Whatever works.

Who 'commonly' understands modern history to be post world war II...where are you getting that from? History was one of my majors, so I'm intrigued....

because modern history is the period after the middle ages, aka circa 1500.

I think you mean contemporary history, so you probably shouldn't call that guy a jackass.

Jackass.
Sorry, I'm not a history major like you. In sports, particularly when discussing records, I often see the term "modern history" used, with the definition of post-WWII.

And I wasn't calling him a jackass because he didn't know what I meant. I called him that because he was being a dick about it. Kind of like you.

[Brokenhill]

But in comparison of their individual time periods, it's far more eminent with Led Zeppelin in that area.

As for Dragonforce, speed doesn't equal good. Jimmy Page had some advanced solos, some with higher rates of speed but they fit into the song or piece overall very well...and for the most part his solos are recognizable individually. Bands like Dragonforce don't have that originality in the writing process that gives their guitar work that standing-out quality, it all sounds similar.

[Brokenhill]

I love this thread. It's evoking the exact kind of outrage I expected and even acknowledged would occur in the first post disclaimer (which, it appears, most people completely skipped or ignored).

Everyone has a different opinion. In my opinion, these are the three greatest bands of all time. (And, too much chagrin from all the Radiohead haters, I'd order them 1. The Beatles, 2. Radiohead, 3. Led Zeppelin.)

Regardless, this poll has caused some solid, heated debate. For those of you who are complaining rather than joining in: instead of bitching about the poll, why don't you tell us who you think history's greatest bands are and why?


Radiohead wishes they were Pink Floyd.

[Tristan Needler]

But in comparison of their individual time periods, it's far more eminent with Led Zeppelin in that area.

As for Dragonforce, speed doesn't equal good. Jimmy Page had some advanced solos, some with higher rates of speed but they fit into the song or piece overall very well...and for the most part his solos are recognizable individually. Bands like Dragonforce don't have that originality in the writing process that gives their guitar work that standing-out quality, it all sounds similar.
But then you essentially are saying that no band after the mid 70's even has a hope at ever being considered the best band of all time.

You have to take the times into consideration. Even the most popular acts of today pale in comparison to how popular even some of the not-as-great bands of the 50's-70's were, simply because now the lesser known music is available. Of course popularity should be considered, but you can't weigh it too heavily based on those facts. Sadly, bands like Nickleback is probably as popular as a non-pop artist will ever be able to get nowadays, just since there is so much music that everyone can choose what they want. Which is why I pointed out how Jimmy Eat World transcends those lines, and is adored by the "music snob" and the "top 40" casual listener alike.

[Tristan Needler]

Radiohead wishes they were Pink Floyd.
Well, I think Radiohead are on a very different road than Pink Floyd. I don't think that's really true either musically or popularity/influence/relevance-wise.

[Brokenhill]

But then you essentially are saying that no band after the mid 70's even has a hope at ever being considered the best band of all time.

You have to take the times into consideration. Even the most popular acts of today pale in comparison to how popular even some of the not-as-great bands of the 50's-70's were, simply because now the lesser known music is available. Of course popularity should be considered, but you can't weigh it too heavily based on those facts. Sadly, bands like Nickleback is probably as popular as a non-pop artist will ever be able to get nowadays, just since there is so much music that everyone can choose what they want. Which is why I pointed out how Jimmy Eat World transcends those lines, and is adored by the "music snob" and the "top 40" casual listener alike.

I'm not just talking about popularity, just how fresh and revolutionary their music was for that time. There still isn't anything today that sounds like LZ. They're just so recognizable, like they're in their own category.

Well, I think Radiohead are on a very different road than Pink Floyd. I don't think that's really true either musically or popularity/influence/relevance-wise.

I'm pretty sure PF is one of their inluences. You can find some similarities throughout their material.
I know they're not trying to be PF, but they seem to try and give off a similar vibe.

[Tristan Needler]

I'm not just talking about popularity, just how fresh and revolutionary their music was for that time. There still isn't anything today that sounds like LZ. They're just so recognizable, like they're in their own category.True, but Jimmy Eat World had some pretty revolutionary moments as well. If you listen to Clarity, at it's heart and soul, it's an emo album, just like early SDRE albums and Mineral albums, but in reality it's so much more. It was something that had really never been done, polishing that emo sound and doing it in a way that brought it to so many more people, and really, completely changed what the music was.

And really, Zeppelin's sound (at it's roots) had been done before by bands like The Who and even a Beatles son or two, but they took it and expanded it and made it their own.

I'm pretty sure PF is one of their inluences. You can find some similarities throughout their material.
I know they're not trying to be PF, but they seem to try and give off a similar vibe.Yeah, for sure. I just don't think they're really trying to be them. I only like a couple Radiohead (Kid A, In Rainbows) albums, and really only one Pink Floyd album (Dark Side of the Moon, although I haven't heard Piper... yet, and from what I've read it might be more up my alley). I think they both are kind of trying to give the same vibe, but I don't think that really means Radiohead is trying to emulate Pink Floyd's vibe, is all I was saying.

[Clark]

Radiohead wishes they were Pink Floyd.
That's cute.

I like Pink Floyd, too. In fact, I have an original pressing of Dark Side of the Moon (thanks to my dad).

[BBScience]

Yes. How do they not?

I'm sorry but Jimmy Eat World is nowhere near the level of "greatest rock band in modern history."

Don't get me wrong, I like JEW and honestly I listen to them more than I do Zeppelin. But outside of the AP demographic JEW has nowhere near the legacy or influence that Zeppelin does.

[Brokenhill]

True, but Jimmy Eat World had some pretty revolutionary moments as well. If you listen to Clarity, at it's heart and soul, it's an emo album, just like early SDRE albums and Mineral albums, but in reality it's so much more. It was something that had really never been done, polishing that emo sound and doing it in a way that brought it to so many more people, and really, completely changed what the music was.

And really, Zeppelin's sound (at it's roots) had been done before by bands like The Who and even a Beatles son or two, but they took it and expanded it and made it their own.

Yeah, for sure. I just don't think they're really trying to be them. I only like a couple Radiohead (Kid A, In Rainbows) albums, and really only one Pink Floyd album (Dark Side of the Moon, although I haven't heard Piper... yet, and from what I've read it might be more up my alley). I think they both are kind of trying to give the same vibe, but I don't think that really means Radiohead is trying to emulate Pink Floyd's vibe, is all I was saying.

Yea 'Piper' is psychedelic pop, so things are a little more straightforward.

[Brokenhill]

That's cute.

I like Pink Floyd, too. In fact, I have an original pressing of Dark Side of the Moon (thanks to my dad).

Pink Floyd is definitely better than Radiohead. What all have you heard from them?

I don't have an original 'TDSOTM' on vinyl, but I do have one of the original pressings of 'The Wall' and the 25th year anniversary 'TDSOTM'.

[Tristan Needler]

I'm sorry but Jimmy Eat World is nowhere near the level of "greatest rock band in modern history."

Don't get me wrong, I like JEW and honestly I listen to them more than I do Zeppelin. But outside of the AP demographic JEW has nowhere near the legacy or influence that Zeppelin does.I never said they were the best, but I think they're a better band than Zeppelin based on most criteria usually used to measure such things.

Yea 'Piper' is psychedelic pop, so things are a little more straightforward.Oh really? That's disappointing. I was hoping it would be more out there, complex psychedelic rock than the rest of their music, which I find relatively tame and kind of uninteresting. Dark Side of the Moon is a pretty cool relaxing album, but it's not what I consider extremely complex.

[HometownHero]

Beatles for sure. But the fact that people are disputing Radiohead is ridiculous

[sk8mule89]

the who.
the who invented the rock opera and are the godfathers of punk music and the music we all pretty much listen to. bad call leaving them off.

[Brokenhill]

I never said they were the best, but I think they're a better band than Zeppelin based on most criteria usually used to measure such things.

Oh really? That's disappointing. I was hoping it would be more out there, complex psychedelic rock than the rest of their music, which I find relatively tame and kind of uninteresting. Dark Side of the Moon is a pretty cool relaxing album, but it's not what I consider extremely complex.


I totally replied to this like 4 hours ago, but I guess it didn't go through.

'Piper' is a lot different than the rest of their material, you shouldn't be dissapointed. I was just saying it's not all spaced out with build ups and stuff like that - it's more to the point, layered, hectic, uptempo, etc. The most "out there" songs on it are "Pow R. Toc H." and "Interstellar Overdrive". If you want really out-there PF then listen to 'Ummagumma'.

[liveloud4life]

For starters, I'd put The Rolling Stones above Zeppelin in the categories you mentioned, even though I like Zeppelin better than The Stones. I'd agree that Pink Floyd should sit above most other bands, but I still feel The Beatles beat them pretty handily. I don't love Pink Floyd either.

There are so many bands that just don't get the credit due to the fact that they weren't as popular or famous. I'd say Santana was a much better band than either The Stones or Zep, along with bands like Genesis, Yes, artists like Elliott Smith and Omar Rodriguez-Lopez, and even more modern groups like Sunny Day Real Estate and Jimmy Eat World. All of those bands have all of those qualities you mentioned, in a bigger and better way, I believe, taste in the actual sound of the music aside. The only thing lacking in any of those is consistency in Genesis and Yes, since they both jumped the shark later in their careers, but in their prime I'd say they were all around, far and away better bands.

Wait. The Stones are better than Zeppeilin on a technical level? I don't even understand how that mistake could ever possibly be believed. Charlie Watts barely knows what a drum is and Keith Richards doesn't know who he is anymore. As opposed to John Bonham and Jimmy Paige, 2 of the most recognized legends of their instrument in rock history.

[Tristan Needler]

Wait. The Stones are better than Zeppeilin on a technical level? I don't even understand how that mistake could ever possibly be believed. Charlie Watts barely knows what a drum is and Keith Richards doesn't know who he is anymore. As opposed to John Bonham and Jimmy Paige, 2 of the most recognized legends of their instrument in rock history.
Seriously? Again, if you want to think that way about it, give the award to Dragonforce. Metallica is obviously better than all the other bands mentioned, because their musicians are more technically proficient. Aphex Twin is the best composer of all time.

[liveloud4life]

Seriously? Again, if you want to think that way about it, give the award to Dragonforce. Metallica is obviously better than all the other bands mentioned, because their musicians are more technically proficient. Aphex Twin is the best composer of all time.

Wow. So Rolling Stones and Metallica. Talk about some serious skills. Lars Ulrich is total shit, too. And I was never saying that technical ability should be the only thing considered for a band merit. But you said that the Stones were better in all of those aspects in response to a comment explicitly referring to technical skill.

And while Herman Lee is extremely fast, that's only one facet of the instrument. He's an extremely one-dimensional player and comes nowhere near comparing to the mastery of Jimmy Paige.

[Tristan Needler]

Wow. So Rolling Stones and Metallica. Talk about some serious skills. Lars Ulrich is total shit, too. And I was never saying that technical ability should be the only thing considered for a band merit. But you said that the Stones were better in all of those aspects in response to a comment explicitly referring to technical skill.

And while Herman Lee is extremely fast, that's only one facet of the instrument. He's an extremely one-dimensional player and comes nowhere near comparing to the mastery of Jimmy Paige.
My last two sentences were dripping with sarcasm, of course. Metallica obviously isn't anywhere close to the best band (notwithstanding the fact that I hate them).

I'm saying technical skill at guitar is different than how good you are at stringing notes together. Just because some guy can play every solo, riff, and lick that Paige ever played, does not make him equally technically proficient. What Keith Richards brought to guitar playing, infusing blues and many other styles into rock music, is exactly what I'm talking about. He is one of those guitar players that changed the way guitar was looked at, like Chuck Berry, Lss Paul, and others did. His technical mastery may not be of the same type as Paige, but it's no less valuable. I'd argue it was more valuable.

Again, I'm not even a fan of The Rolling Stones. I find their music okay at best, boring at worst. I like Led Zeppelin more than The Stones by a long shot. But what the stones have done for music (rock and otherwise) far outweighs anything Led Zeppelin has done.

[liveloud4life]

My last two sentences were dripping with sarcasm, of course. Metallica obviously isn't anywhere close to the best band. And what Keith Richards brought to guitar playing, infusing blues and many other styles back into rock music, is exactly what I'm talking about. His mastery may not be of the same type as Paige, but it's no less valuable.

Even if Richards is AS influential as Paige that still doesn't make him technically comparable. And that still says nothing about anyone else in the band, namely Watts who can't even figure out how to hold a composite beat between both hands. Watch him play, he has to break on hihat when he hits the snare.

[Tristan Needler]

Even if Richards is AS influential as Paige that still doesn't make him technically comparable. And that still says nothing about anyone else in the band, namely Watts who can't even figure out how to hold a composite beat between both hands. Watch him play, he has to break on hihat when he hits the snare.
Does and has to are two totally different things. Many song sound better when the hat and snare aren't played at the same time.

The ingenuity he brought to the band, and to guitar playing in general, makes him technically comparable. Creativity is a part of musicianship that's inseparable from sheer ability to play. They both contribute to a technically good player.

Anyway, I don't even know why we're arguing about band members' proficiencies, because the technical proficiency of the band is what matters here. And that's a totally different thing.


It seems we're defining "technical" in different ways. I'm seeing it as a synonym for musicianship, where both playing ability and creativity along with all other aspects of musicality. I think you're defining it as just the playing ability. There, Paige wins, sure. If Paige and Richards had a "guitar off" then Paige would destroy Richards. But in the context of the bands and the music, Richards has accomplished so much more.

[Tristan Needler]

I mean look at the simplicity of the riff in (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction. Anyone can play that riff, even non guitar players. Hell, anyone could pick up a guitar and probably figure it out on their own. But that riff it probably more recognizable as well as inspirational than any Paige riff (save maybe Kashmir).

I mean, Black Dog by Zeppelin is infinitely more difficult to play (and infinitely cooler haha) but all things considered, it didn't really do anything for rock music outside of that song. In fact, many bands were doing way more complex things at the time, so it's not even groundbreaking or anything. It's an awesome riff, but that's it.

In most situations that would be enough, but when you're talking about the best bands ever, there's more to it.

Not to mention that riff was written by John Paul Jones.

[liveloud4life]

Does and has to are two totally different things. Many song sound better when the hat and snare aren't played at the same time.

The ingenuity he brought to the band, and to guitar playing in general, makes him technically comparable. Creativity is a part of musicianship that's inseparable from sheer ability to play. They both contribute to a technically good player.

Anyway, I don't even know why we're arguing about band members' proficiencies, because the technical proficiency of the band is what matters here. And that's a totally different thing.


It seems we're defining "technical" in different ways. I'm seeing it as a synonym for musicianship, where both playing ability and creativity along with all other aspects of musicality. I think you're defining it as just the playing ability. There, Paige wins, sure. If Paige and Richards had a "guitar off" then Paige would destroy Richards. But in the context of the bands and the music, Richards has accomplished so much more.

That;s at least graspable when defined that way. Don't get me wrong, i value those things greatly, I would just identify them differnetly. But the band as a whole, Zeppelin still blows them away technically no matter the definition.

After so many years, I'm sure Charlie Watts can now play his hands together but I believe he was at one point incapable but still chooses not to simply out of habit. Sometimes they do sound better seperate, such as in linear style grooves, but not in simple 4 beats.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

The Beatles, hands down. The other aren't even top 25 material.

i think they are each top 3 worthy, but i can see where someone would say radiohead isn't. however, led zeppelin is without a doubt one of the best two best bands of all time. easily.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

I understand how you might not like them. I don't really like The Beatles, but I recognize (at least some) of their strengths, like lyrically, or their harmonies, or whatever. I voted for them over LZ in this poll even though I enjoy LZ 100x more.

But it doesn't really matter because Pink Floyd encompasses the musical variety and even technicality (in some cases) that LZ has, with the writing of The Beatles (I would say it's better) and also has that prominence in the music culture. But then again, I haven't heard enough of The Beatles to pass a 100% solid judgement.

i was agreeing with you in every post you had made up until this point lol

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Radiohead wishes they were Pink Floyd.

and again in this post. but other than this, i find myself picking up everything you are putting down.

[secretsociety92]

None of them.

[Tristan Needler]

i think they are each top 3 worthy, but i can see where someone would say radiohead isn't. however, led zeppelin is without a doubt one of the best two best bands of all time. easily.
Have you ever heard Santana (the band, not the solo stuff)? Elliott Smith? Donovan? Yes? Genesis? All better.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

My last two sentences were dripping with sarcasm, of course. Metallica obviously isn't anywhere close to the best band (notwithstanding the fact that I hate them).

I'm saying technical skill at guitar is different than how good you are at stringing notes together. Just because some guy can play every solo, riff, and lick that Paige ever played, does not make him equally technically proficient. What Keith Richards brought to guitar playing, infusing blues and many other styles into rock music, is exactly what I'm talking about. He is one of those guitar players that changed the way guitar was looked at, like Chuck Berry, Lss Paul, and others did. His technical mastery may not be of the same type as Paige, but it's no less valuable. I'd argue it was more valuable.

Again, I'm not even a fan of The Rolling Stones. I find their music okay at best, boring at worst. I like Led Zeppelin more than The Stones by a long shot. But what the stones have done for music (rock and otherwise) far outweighs anything Led Zeppelin has done.

dear lord, this is false.

led zeppelin and the beatles are the two most influential music makers from within the studio of all time. they were so ridiculously ahead of their time, and the rolling stones, while important and influential and blah blah blah, do not hold a candle to led zeppelin. zeppelin's musical catalogue ranges from blues (since i've been loving you, when the levee breaks) to original rock and roll standards (rock and roll, black dog) to folk (the battle of evermore, over the hills and far away, bron-yr-stomp) to progressive (achilles last stand, the song remains the same), funk (trampled underfoot), and the early fixtures of punk rock (communication breakdown). fuck, they even touch in middle eastern stylings (black mountain slide, kashmir), reggae (d'yer maker), and ragtime (boogie with stu).

so in technical skill- led zeppelin. jimmy page is a better guitarist, robert plant the better vocalist, JPJ the better bassist/ utility musician, and bonham one of the two best rock drummers of all time (whats up neil pert?)

in the scope of their catalogue- led zep (despite you saying they are simply: fine bluesy rock-meta)

in success with mainstream audiences- probably equal. but the song stairway to heaven is the number one most requested rock and roll song of all time, and it was never even released as a single. so i might go with zep, though i can see the argument in this one aspect.

in influence- i know all the bands i listen to say led zep.. so i say led zep.

again, if they aren't in your top 25 favorite bands, that is perfectly fine. i know people who love bands like sabbath and rush, and i can't stand the two. but i don't see how you can objectively say there are 25 bands better/ more important, but include a band like the rolling stones into that mix.

/rant.

[Tristan Needler]

dear lord, this is false.

led zeppelin and the beatles are the two most influential music makers from within the studio of all time. they were so ridiculously ahead of their time, and the rolling stones, while important and influential and blah blah blah, do not hold a candle to led zeppelin. zeppelin's musical catalogue ranges from blues (since i've been loving you, when the levee breaks) to original rock and roll standards (rock and roll, black dog) to folk (the battle of evermore, over the hills and far away, bron-yr-stomp) to progressive (achilles last stand, the song remains the same), funk (trampled underfoot), and the early fixtures of punk rock (communication breakdown). fuck, they even touch in middle eastern stylings (black mountain slide, kashmir), reggae (d'yer maker), and ragtime (boogie with stu).

so in technical skill- led zeppelin. jimmy page is a better guitarist, robert plant the better vocalist, JPJ the better bassist/ utility musician, and bonham one of the two best rock drummers of all time (whats up neil pert?)

in the scope of their catalogue- led zep (despite you saying they are simply: )

in success with mainstream audiences- probably equal. but the song stairway to heaven is the number one most requested rock and roll song of all time, and it was never even released as a single. so i might go with zep, though i can see the argument in this one aspect.

in influence- i know all the bands i listen to say led zep.. so i say led zep.

again, if they aren't in your top 25 favorite bands, that is perfectly fine. i know people who love bands like sabbath and rush, and i can't stand the two. but i don't see how you can objectively say there are 25 bands better/ more important, but include a band like the rolling stones into that mix.

/rant.
Sorry, but you're wrong haha. If you really think Led Zeppelin were brought more to the progression of music in general and were more influential, then I don't know what to say. It's simply not true.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Have you ever heard Santana (the band, not the solo stuff)? Elliott Smith? Donovan? Yes? Genesis? All better.

see above rant.

and yes, i was raised in the classics. none of those apply. but fuck man, elliot smith better than zep? i wish he was around so he could laugh in your face. it is one thing to not prefer led zeppelin's musical output, but it is another to use that to take away their greatness.


by the way, i am a huge elliot smith fan. it is just a laughable notion.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Sorry, but you're wrong haha. If you really think Led Zeppelin were brought more to the progression of music in general and were more influential, then I don't know what to say. It's simply not true.

you remind me of this kid in my government class who says yellowcard is more musically diverse than radiohead.

can you give me a valid argument as to why they are not ? at least i gave you something as to why they are. you are pretty much saying. "no, i say you are wrong, so you are wrong."

[Tristan Needler]

you remind me of this kid in my government class who says yellowcard is more musically diverse than radiohead.

can you give me a valid argument as to why they are not ? at least i gave you something as to why they are. you are pretty much saying. "no, i say you are wrong, so you are wrong."Hey, I can through rude unnecessary comparisons around too.

You remind me of the other kids on AP that argue different points than the ones at hand, because they have no argument for the topical points.

Your points are irrelevant. You're saying Led Zeppelin is more diverse than The Stones, which no one will argue with. Hell, I've written five songs in my life and they're more diverse than The Stones. Does that make me more influential? Better?

No, of course not, that would be absurd. The Stones are greatly more influential than Led Zeppelin, and really no one argues that they aren't.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Hey, I can through rude unnecessary comparisons around too.

You remind me of the other kids on AP that argue different points than the ones at hand, because they have no argument for the topical points.

Your points are irrelevant. You're saying Led Zeppelin is more diverse than The Stones, which no one will argue with. Hell, I've written five songs in my life and they're more diverse than The Stones. Does that make me more influential? Better?

No, of course not, that would be absurd. The Stones are greatly more influential than Led Zeppelin, and really no one argues that they aren't.

quite the contrary, did i not say how zeppelin's studio technique for recording was second only to the beatles? did i not say site several songs in which they stretch away the label of a simple "blues-metal" band, and touched in to genres that would become more popular later on (i.e punk, indie-folk, progressive)? and, on top of that, i gave even more reasons they are better/ more influential than almost any band, ESPECIALLY THE ROLLING FUCKING STONES?

who says the stone's are more influential? obviously they influence some groups, but:

the hair metal scene (while, admittedly, a piece of shit to music fans such as myself) directly inspired and descendent from zeppelin's rock-god persona.

grunge bands like pearl jam, soundgarden, nirvana, alice in chains- would all site led zep as a high influence.

ask isaac brock of modest mouse which guitarist influences him more. or john mayer who he takes more influence from. or cedric and omar of the mars volta. or colin meloy of the decemberist's with the subject matter and style of writing on the hazard's of love. or dave grohl of foo fighters, my favorite band. ask him who made him want to become a drummer (kind of ties back into grunge, but still). the list goes on and on.

i did once hear miley cyrus say she LOVES satisfaction, though.

[Tristan Needler]

quite the contrary, did i not say how zeppelin's studio technique for recording was second only to the beatles? did i not say site several songs in which they stretch away the label of a simple "blues-metal" band, and touched in to genres that would become more popular later on (i.e punk, indie-folk, progressive)? and, on top of that, i gave even more reasons they are better/ more influential than almost any band, ESPECIALLY THE ROLLING FUCKING STONES?

who says the stone's are more influential? obviously they influence some groups, but:

the hair metal scene (while, admittedly, a piece of shit to music fans such as myself) directly inspired and descendent from zeppelin's rock-god persona.

grunge bands like pearl jam, soundgarden, nirvana, alice in chains- would all site led zep as a high influence.

ask isaac brock of modest mouse which guitarist influences him more. or john mayer who he takes more influence from. or cedric and omar of the mars volta. the list goes on and on.

i did once hear miley cyrus say she LOVES satisfaction, though.
Again, what genres they touched into is irrelevant, as nearly all of them were already being played by other bands. Are you going to try to tell me Led Zeppelin invented punk, indie-folk, and progressive music? No, and you can't even tell me that they brought it to anyone's attention, either. All of this stuff came before, and was done much better.

If you want to go with the "branching to other genres" route (which is always asinine and completely useless), then far more genres are influenced by The Rolling Stones. The entire spectrum of not friendly, angry rock music was practically created by them. Led Zeppelin wouldn't be around if it wasn't for them.

I'd like to make sure you understand that the above paragraph is not an argument at all, and never will be. If we wanted to, we could talk about how The Stones were influenced by The Beatles, The Beatles by Elvis, Elvis by Chuck Berry, Chuck Berry by any myriad blues artist, the blues from swing, swing from jazz, jazz from the fusion of African and European music, European music from classical music... should I keep going?

Again, you're coming up with facts, but they're totally irrelevant. By your logic we'd have to extrapolate that the first person who ever banged on a wall or grunted in different pitches is the greatest band of all time.


If you want to talk about things that actually pertain to the discussion I'm all for it, otherwise I have to study for my organic chem exam tonight.


P.S. I love how you boast that Zeppelin influence hair metal and grunge, but make fun of The Stones because Miley Cyrus likes them.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Again, what genres they touched into is irrelevant, as nearly all of them were already being played by other bands. Are you going to try to tell me Led Zeppelin invented punk, indie-folk, and progressive music? No, and you can't even tell me that they brought it to anyone's attention, either. All of this stuff came before, and was done much better.

do you by chance know when zeppelin started making music? and when jimmy page and robert plant got involved in music? no, they did not invent any specific style, because their music was all over the place. what i am saying is that the touched in and expertly executed many different forms of music that the rolling stones and other bands you have proposed as "greater" than led zeppelin were/ are incapable of doing

If you want to go with the "branching to other genres" route (which is always asinine and completely useless), then far more genres are influenced by The Rolling Stones. The entire spectrum of not friendly, angry rock music was practically created by them. Led Zeppelin wouldn't be around if it wasn't for them.

again, you must have no clue when led zeppelin began creating music, and how little it sounds like the rolling stones. any form of heavy music, either in music or in lyrics, is much more traceable to page, plant, jones and bonham than the stones. please, explain to me how it is not. you have not provided one legit argument consisting of anything more than your word against mine, but have spoken nothing of the stone's personal merits that makes them better than led zeppelin.

I'd like to make sure you understand that the above paragraph is not an argument at all, and never will be. If we wanted to, we could talk about how The Stones were influenced by The Beatles, The Beatles by Elvis, Elvis by Chuck Berry, Chuck Berry by any myriad blues artist, the blues from swing, swing from jazz, jazz from the fusion of African and European music, European music from classical music... should I keep going?

as a person who's father's favorite band is the rolling stones, i have read several books about them and with band member's personal interviews. not one time have i heard a member of the band list the beatles as a influence. muddy waters, yes. howlin' wolf, yes. robert johnson, yes. blues artists, yes. the beatles, no. if you mean they were influenced in a competitive manner, then that is justifiable. in any other context though, you are as wrong as someone who says that jimmy eat world is a better band than led zeppelin and radiohead.

Again, you're coming up with facts, but they're totally irrelevant. By your logic we'd have to extrapolate that the first person who ever banged on a wall or grunted in different pitches is the greatest band of all time.

you keep refusing to acknowledge that a.) i said led zeppelin is one of the two most influential bands in terms of innovativeness in the recording process b.) i have listed groups and artists (just the ones off the top of my head) that have cited influence from led zeppelin and c.) that even if my facts were "totally irrelevant" (which they are not, as they pertain to the characteristic by which you said rolling stones have their number: influence), at least i have provided some facts at all.

but you, my friend; every claim you make: that i am 'not giving relevant information', that 'the stones are better than led zeppelin', that 'no one argues otherwise'... everything you say you refuse to substantiate. you have three options from here

1.) admit you do not know by which plausible tokens that band1 is better than band2.
2.) continue being ignorant.
3.) rather than picking and choosing which points of my argument you want to recognize and which you will ignore, rather than rather than generalizing statements, rather than saying led zeppelin is not a better band than band1, simply explain why your claims are justifiable.


If you want to talk about things that actually pertain to the discussion I'm all for it, otherwise I have to study for my organic chem exam tonight.

everything you have quoted and responded to has been a clear and logical argument as to how led zeppelin is better than and more influential than the rolling stones. you have not provided one fact or viable argument to the rolling stones being better than or more influential than led zeppelin, other than saying "well,

P.S. I love how you boast that Zeppelin influence hair metal and grunge, but make fun of The Stones because Miley Cyrus likes them.

boast? i acknowledged that hair metal is shitty to listeners such of ourselves. the grunge acts i listed (pearl jam, soundgarden, nirvana, alice in chains) are legitimate bands ranging from decent-great musicians. miley cyrus is not really good or respectable in anyway. but then again, you think elliot smith and jimmy eat world are better than led zeppelin, so maybe you enjoy her.


beyond that, this is not an attack on you. it is an attack on an illogical argument. so good luck with that test mate.

[Brokenhill]

i was agreeing with you in every post you had made up until this point lol

Gilmour might not "shred" like Page, but his writing compares with (and IMO exceeds) Page's. He writes unique, memorable solos that fit perfectly into each song they're written for.

Nick Mason doesn't have the technical skill of Bonham, but his playing is equally powerful in so many songs (like "Eclipse" or "In the Flesh"). It turns to writing again - Mason's work is perfect in everysong...I can't think of 1 (out of 100+) where i've been dissapointed, and that's not because of fanboyism. Bonham has that same strength as well for the most part, but he's not way far ahead of Mason, that's all i'm saying.

and again in this post. but other than this, i find myself picking up everything you are putting down.

This was mainly sarcastic, but in all seriousness - Pink Floyd trumps Radiohead by a large margin.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Gilmour might not "shred" like Page, but his writing compares with (and IMO exceeds) Page's. He writes unique, memorable solos that fit perfectly into each song they're written for.

Nick Mason doesn't have the technical skill of Bonham, but his playing is equally powerful in so many songs (like "Eclipse" or "In the Flesh"). It turns to writing again - Mason's work is perfect in everysong...I can't think of 1 (out of 100+) where i've been dissapointed, and that's not because of fanboyism. Bonham has that same strength as well for the most part, but he's not way far ahead of Mason, that's all i'm saying.



This was mainly sarcastic, but in all seriousness - Pink Floyd trumps Radiohead by a large margin.

i can agree with the italicized bit. i'll take plants vocals though, but that is just a matter of preference.


i disagree with bold, but i can see where one would form that opinion. radiohead is one of my all time favorites though.

[Broclee]

quite the contrary, did i not say how zeppelin's studio technique for recording was second only to the beatles?

Sorry, but...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7GF2kkMcTKc/SW-dxFC3B9I/AAAAAAAAYNE/MamBLEvXaXc/s400/admire+brian.jpg

I realize this has nothing to do with either the original topic or your Stones vs. Zeppelin argument. I'm just sayin.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Sorry, but...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7GF2kkMcTKc/SW-dxFC3B9I/AAAAAAAAYNE/MamBLEvXaXc/s400/admire+brian.jpg

I realize this has nothing to do with either the original topic or your Stones vs. Zeppelin argument. I'm just sayin.

eh, maybe i should have expanded the list to top 5 for zeppelin to fit in. but either way, they were geniuses in the studio, which is in support of my argument.

[Broclee]

eh, maybe i should have expanded the list to top 5 for zeppelin to fit in. but either way, they were geniuses in the studio, which is in support of my argument.
I won't disagree with you there. The drum tone/sound/whatever-you-want-to-call-it on "When the Levee Breaks" is astounding, for instance.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

I won't disagree with you there. The drum tone/sound/whatever-you-want-to-call-it on "When the Levee Breaks" is astounding, for instance.

they recorded bonham's drums from the bottom of a stairwell. haha genius.

[Broclee]

they recorded bonham's drums from the bottom of a stairwell. haha genius.
Aaaaaaaaaand slowed them down to get some of that sludgy sound. I don't even really care for that song (I'm not a huge LZ fan), but I could listen that opening beat looped for 7 minutes by itself and still love it. It's hypnotic to me.

[Clark]

Something in the Zeppelin/Stones debate brought up a different interesting argument.

Who'd you say the best rock drummer is? Neil Pert, John Bonham, and Keith Moon are the first three that come to mind. Who else?

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Something in the Zeppelin/Stones debate brought up a different interesting argument.

Who'd you say the best rock drummer is? Neil Pert, John Bonham, and Keith Moon are the first three that come to mind. Who else?

idk. it's probably between those three. i'd say that pert meant the most to his band though, in that bonham was surrounded by three incredible musicians, and pert kind of carried the group. not saying alex and geddy were subpar, just no page or plant or jones.

so it'd be a toss up between moon and pert for me. clark- make that poll

[Clark]

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1393112

[Tristan Needler]

First of all, sorry this took so long, I had that orgo exam Saturday, a wedding on Sunday, class then work Monday, and a múm show in Toronto last night.

do you by chance know when zeppelin started making music? and when jimmy page and robert plant got involved in music? no, they did not invent any specific style, because their music was all over the place. what i am saying is that the touched in and expertly executed many different forms of music that the rolling stones and other bands you have proposed as "greater" than led zeppelin were/ are incapable of doingAgain and again, that doesn't make them better, and it doesn't make them more influential. Brand New play a wider variety of genres than The Stones, but they're not more influential at all.



again, you must have no clue when led zeppelin began creating music, and how little it sounds like the rolling stones. any form of heavy music, either in music or in lyrics, is much more traceable to page, plant, jones and bonham than the stones. please, explain to me how it is not. you have not provided one legit argument consisting of anything more than your word against mine, but have spoken nothing of the stone's personal merits that makes them better than led zeppelin.I didn't say it sounded like them, just that it was influenced by them.

There is more rock music out there than heavy rock music, and the vast majority can trace it's sound, attitude, and entire image to The Rolling Stones. Possibly more in fact than The Beatles even when it comes to image, since The Beatles didn't really have that rebel against society vibe which the majority of rock music takes it's persona from.


as a person who's father's favorite band is the rolling stones, i have read several books about them and with band member's personal interviews. not one time have i heard a member of the band list the beatles as a influence. muddy waters, yes. howlin' wolf, yes. robert johnson, yes. blues artists, yes. the beatles, no. if you mean they were influenced in a competitive manner, then that is justifiable. in any other context though, you are as wrong as someone who says that jimmy eat world is a better band than led zeppelin and radiohead.The Beatles essentially saved guitar-centred music from dying out. Along with that, and their effective invention of album-oriented rock, and expanding of the boundaries of what can be considered rock music, they influenced any genre-bending rock band of that, or almost any era.


you keep refusing to acknowledge that a.) i said led zeppelin is one of the two most influential bands in terms of innovativeness in the recording process b.) i have listed groups and artists (just the ones off the top of my head) that have cited influence from led zeppelin and c.) that even if my facts were "totally irrelevant" (which they are not, as they pertain to the characteristic by which you said rolling stones have their number: influence), at least i have provided some facts at all.I'll be honest, I don't have a list. But you only need to open your ears to hear that The Stones have influenced far more bands outside of the heavy rock scene than Zeppelin could ever claim.

but you, my friend; every claim you make: that i am 'not giving relevant information', that 'the stones are better than led zeppelin', that 'no one argues otherwise'... everything you say you refuse to substantiate. you have three options from here

1.) admit you do not know by which plausible tokens that band1 is better than band2.
2.) continue being ignorant.
3.) rather than picking and choosing which points of my argument you want to recognize and which you will ignore, rather than rather than generalizing statements, rather than saying led zeppelin is not a better band than band1, simply explain why your claims are justifiable.I've been explaining how my claims are justifiable this whole time. And while it pains me to bring it up again, you continuing to say that Led Zeppelin play a broader range of styles than The Stones still has nothing to do with how influential they are. Really, it just doesn't, as much as you may wish it does.


everything you have quoted and responded to has been a clear and logical argument as to how led zeppelin is better than and more influential than the rolling stones. you have not provided one fact or viable argument to the rolling stones being better than or more influential than led zeppelin, other than saying "well, It's been clear, and logical, but it hasn't been an argument as to why they are more influential, or as to why they are better. If you want facts, look at the sheer number of sources that claim The Rolling Stones are a better band than Led Zeppelin. Want an example? Here: Zeppelin isn't even top 10 greatest artists of all time, and Radiohead isn't even top 50. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939207/the_immortals__the_greatest_artists _of_all_time_4_the_rolling_stones

Want me to find more sources? I will if you need them.



boast? i acknowledged that hair metal is shitty to listeners such of ourselves. the grunge acts i listed (pearl jam, soundgarden, nirvana, alice in chains) are legitimate bands ranging from decent-great musicians. miley cyrus is not really good or respectable in anyway. but then again, you think elliot smith and jimmy eat world are better than led zeppelin, so maybe you enjoy her.Jimmy Eat World and Elliott Smith are better musically than Led Zeppelin, but that's not the argument we're having right now. That's an opinion debate.

I personally hate all those grunge bands you listed, but that's my taste. I don't argue what musicians are "better musically" anymore, because it's an asinie debate. There's no such thing. There's only opinion. You can, however, intelligently discuss things such as influence, and technical proficiency.

I'd also like to hear the details about that leap in logic that shows people who like Jimmy Eat World and Elliott Smith better than Led Zeppelin fans of Miley Cyrus.


beyond that, this is not an attack on you. it is an attack on an illogical argument. so good luck with that test mate.This isn't an attack on you either, but on an incorrect idea of what is considered logic and legitimate argument. I wish what you had posted had been a test instead of the same thing again. The easiest way I can see that you can still think this way in the face of real logic, is that you're quite biased toward Led Zeppelin, seeing as you like them quite a lot.

[paul12091]

Bring Me The Horizon


Sike!

[paul12091]

The Beatles and only The Bealtes.


Yesyesyesyesyes

[x13looDx]

Favorite Bands
Dry Kill Logic, Saosin, Mayday Parade, Lamb Of God, Killswitch Engage, The Used, Eighteen Visions, Sum 41, Submersed, Secondhand Serenade, Just Surrender, All Time Low

Oh ok.

Didn't even know I had a profile, when did I join?

[Bruised26]

OMG WTF NOOO ITS BLINK 182!

... i voted for The Beatles, hands down.

[:-)]

None of those bands would exist without the Beatles, sooo...

[Broclee]

None of those bands would exist without the Beatles, sooo...
As much as I love the Beatles, I really get tired of hearing this all the time. People act like the Beatles created music.

[:-)]

As much as I love the Beatles, I really get tired of hearing this all the time. People act like the Beatles created music.

Well you can't deny that they were majorly influential.
More influential than the other bands in this poll, anyway...

[Brokenhill]

None of those bands would exist without the Beatles, sooo...
I don't think The Yardbirds were influenced by The Beatles.

[:-)]

I don't think The Yardbirds were influenced by The Beatles.

I don't think the Yardbirds are an option in this poll. :shrug:

[Brokenhill]

I don't think the Yardbirds are an option in this poll. :shrug:

Led Zeppelin came from The Yardbirds.

[Broclee]

Well you can't deny that they were majorly influential.
More influential than the other bands in this poll, anyway...

I don't think I ever tried to deny that. Yes, the Beatles were highly influential. No, they are not the origin of all music.

[Paulb-182]

The Beatles. Although I would pick Nirvana if they were an option.