It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Absolute horseshit. They are some of the best musicians, but by no means the best band. Their first album had perhaps 2 (and that's being lenient) good songs, and their closing album Goodbye had perhaps 1, AT BEST, written by George Harrison. Sure, Baker is king of the afrobeat style and clapton is obviously top 5 in guitar ever, but their songwriting skills together have always been B-tier at best. This is the reason why someone like Hendrix was always put in front of Clapton - he was a second to none songwriter, as well as a fantastic guitarist. Please look at the whole package before you declare a "best band of all time".
i love pink floyd but I like a lot of bands. you're ignorant to claim one band as being "the greatest" because all the other great bands aren't even in the same genre. Theres a lot of great bands out there, all with unique sounds. Pink Floyd is certainly "ONE OF THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME" but not "The greatest of all time"
Name for me a set of proper songs Clapton wrote without the help of greater songwriting talents like duane allman, jj cale, or delaney and bonnie. You have 2, maybe 3 tops. It remains from his work that clapton was primarily a guitarist, leaving the songwriting to his songwriting betters. It's not necessarily negative, since his guitar talents obviously see him through, but even back as far as Cream, the lyrics were primarily written by Bruce or his he more artistic friends (in the case of Tales of Brave Ulysses).
arguing about the "greatest" is pointless. all the bands that were posted are fucking amazing in their own, unique way. this is what sets each group apart from the others, but doesn't make them better necessarily.
that being said, this shit right here is the GREATEST BAND EVER ALWAYS FOR INFINITY
Given Hendrix's 3 main albums, the combined output of his work that are either covers, or not written solely by Hendrix totals to 11% of his total artistic ouput, and that's without factoring in the live stuff (composed entirely of original songs, or collaborative songs in the case of Band of Gypsys), and the unfinished First Rays era songs (which were wholly original as well).
For reference, there are 1/17, 1/13, and 3/16 songs on the first three albums that are either covers, or written by someone other than Hendrix himself.
Its hard to compare Led Zep and Pink Floyd, i like Led Zep to listen more casually, but i prefer taking my time to fully appreciate a Pink Floyd. Much genius on both sides.
other than the wall, dark side, animals, and piper at the gates of dawn, floyd sucks. the division bell and the final cut both suck, along with meddle. (i know there are more albums but they are insignificant)
the who are really not that good, they follow the same 1,4,5 that most people do for songs.
zeppelin is above average, but i dont find much special in them other than bonham who is argueable the best drummer of all time. JPJ is pretty talented but plant is a whiny bitch and page is a mediocre guitarist. although they have some wholy shitty albums (zep III, in through the out door), they make up for it in zep 4, precense, and coda.
RHCP is not that good, at all. flea is pretty talented but fruciantes glory days are long past.
i cant remember who else was mentioned, but i think a great band needs to be able to improvise. when all members of a band are just letting music flow out of them, and the connection between them puts everyone in the right place at the right time, the greatest music is made.
as you couldve guessed, i think the dead are the greatest band of all time, allman bros are up there also.
if there are any deadheads on here, dont take me for an early dead guy, anywhere 68-85 i can get down with, but saggy jerry just makes me sad.
Well, there goes your entire argument. The grateful dead are one of the least innovative, most terribly uninterestingly 3/5 star bands out there with the largest, most vocal fanbase spouting the "OMG GD is best band" opinion. If you're going to make the argument that Pink Floyd is bad except for x-many years in their discography, you have to take the same into account for the Dead. It remains that everything they did from Steal Your Face in 1976 to Inrared in 1991. The vast majority of their discography - and live shows, as it were, in the case of such celebrity abominations as Dylan and the Dead - were utter failures, and that's putting it lightly. There's something to be said of their live skills, but they were really not amazing with their instruments. Garcia rarely broke out of the willowy, flower-dress-twirling hippie major key style he made famous, and none of the other musicians in the group anyone would ever accuse of being good musicians.
Case in point, they fall victim to the same traps you say Floyd falls into (with which I agree, and espoused earlier in the thread), though, without Water's interesting writing, Gilmour's interesting guitar, or their combined elegant songwriting.
Now, as for Led Zeppelin, 17 songs ripped off, stolen, or otherwise pilfered from their original artists, of which, 4 sued, or are currently in litigation for.
too bad his "major" key style is mostly the mixolydian. id love to know what qualifies you to speak so critically of specifically guitarists, as youve made barely any mention of bassists, keys, or drummers
saying phil is not a fantastic bassist is just a straight up lie. while bobby is not an extremely talented guitarist him and garcia clearly work extremely well together. as for their drummers, billy was fantastic as well as mickey. and i swear if you disrespect pig pen i will come after you. obviously donna and keith kinda sucked, brent was mediocre, and any members thereafter sucked.
along with that, i cant say i think coda is a good album, but while in arguement black mountain side crossed my mind, and that kinda pushed coda into the list.
but, as mentioned, id love to hear who you think is a great band. im sure i can rip them apart as fast as you did the dead.
alright, ive settled a bit and am no longer heated.
i can agree with the beatles, although their "magical mystery tour" was a direct copy of essentially keseys important years (touring the country on a psychedelic bus).
but patti smith? come on man. her lyrics are semi-interesting, but in all reality the music is simple and extremely repetitive. as for nick drake and television i cant say much about, but the velvet underground dont appeal to me at all. i think the real difference is our tastes. you sound like more of a jefferson airplane type of guy (idk about that band but you get the idea) where as i cant take studio music. yonder mountain string band, jethro tull, and the allman bros with duane are more my taste.
I agree I think Floyd edge their contemporaries. Best of the era at least.
But they are just a great band no more no less. If you have a stupid obsession for them (like people have for the Dead or Phish where you love them an think everything else is shit) you devalue the music and do a diservice.
But Floyd are the best band of their era no question about it.
I get that it's a weird opinion, and I'd be happy to elaborate in a more worthy thread if you feel it needs more justification - afterall, the same things could be said of dylan (certainly his post-Blonde on Blonde material), so I can see where you're coming from. As for Velvet, some people could take or leave them, but you absolutely MUST hear Television and Nick Drake if you haven't already. They're incredible for how little known they are.
And I absolutely get what you mean by Tull and Allman bros and YMSB. There's a kind of person that's more drawn to live improvisation than studio magic. That's fine. At least Duane was one of the finest slide players on the planet (eclipsed by Derek Trucks, though, whom I assume you already know and love) and YSMB is always good.
I really cannot handle when people tell me the Grateful Dead are a good live band, though. Honestly.
Then make a case for whom you think should be called "best band". If it's not without fault, I won't rip it apart. If you're just going to pussy out the moment and anyone points out the flaws in your arguments without giving at list a riposte, then it will obviously look like I'm shitting all over your opinions. The point is debate, not critique.
Mick solo, or with David Bowie has NOTHING to do with the Stones. Paul McCartney has done some shitty solo tunes, but that has shit to do with the Beatles.
Paul McCartney also put out a fantastic set of 3 first solo albums - McCartney, Ram, and Band on the Run. The latter two definitely contend for top 20 albums of the entire decade.
do you actually think that? i'm not saying you're wrong cause i've never really listened to much of his solo stuff, it's just interesting you'd say that. don't think i've heard such high praise for his solo work before
fruciantes let the guitar flow out of him in every song at slane(posted above) watch the intro to californication and you will see some real music right there.
hes def past his prime (as he is not with rhcp anymore), but in his prime(slane, 2001) i really feel like he was one of the best to ever pick up a guitar. his backup vocals were wonderful too(the new guy is horrid)
