Influence wise? I'd go with the band that influenced the Beatles, and who's riffs and melodies appear in chart music still.
Buddy Holly and the Crickets.
no.
It's so obviously the Beatles. It's not about personal preference either. The progress they made from start to end of career, the reach of their influence way beyond music, the whole cultural scope of what they achieved, and their music itself obviously. Nobody else touches them taken as a whole.
I love The Beatles, but I would never call them the best. Probably the most influential and popular, maybe, but best to me means ability and quality of work. There are other bands out there who have out-excelled The Beatles when it comes to this criteria.
I love The Beatles, but I would never call them the best. Probably the most influential and popular, maybe, but best to me means ability and quality of work. There are other bands out there who have out-excelled The Beatles when it comes to this criteria.
Well my comment was kind of tongue in cheek, obviously 'best band ever' is really just down to personal choice, and threads like this just lead to silly arguments.
My choice would be Pink Floyd, it's the music that I turn to time and again and it never disappoints. I'd wager that my Floyd collection would be more than a rival to yours, but i never managed to see the classic line up (assuming you're talking David, Roger, Rick and Nick?), although I have seen all of them on many occasions. Fair comment on Roger not being the best bassist but he sure can put on a show and right a good song.
Anyway, time for a bit of Meddle i think. ::p
i think most people would lose a wager when it comes to my music collection for my favourite artists as i'm a sucker for rarities and collectables and getting every last sound recorded. so quad, coloured, picture discs, promos with music not officially released, ancient tour programs and t shirts and recordings of things people never even knew existed from floyd and it's members. things you've never seen or heard. that's how big i fan i am, and that's the classic line up you mentioned, with syd it would be the original lineup, with syd and dave it would be the very rare lineup, and without rog it would be the floyd tribute experience with 3 members of pink floyd onstage with about 40 blokes no-one knows and a few backing singers.
but even as one of my top 5 favourite bands, i acknowledge that not everything they recorded was great and the members aren't all of a standard that would rate them amongst the best in class, especially roger, and i prefer rogers solo work far more than the post-rog floyd. pros and cons is one of my all time favourite albums and i'd say was claptons best guitar work on record. but he's no great singer or bassist or guitarist, but he wrote some of the greatest songs of all time and his recent wall tour is one of the most amazing live experiences of all time.
so i completely disagree it's down to personal opinions, as the bands mentioned were picked solely on merit of musical ability, as opposed to my favourites. again i'm a huge beatles fan, have a ridiculous collection, been to abbey road, met paul macartney, bought the laserdisc, wore the t shirt, and taught myself to play keyboards and guitar from a chord book and a book of beatles songs, because i knew what all the beatles songs sounded like so i knew if i was playing the song right or wrong. i learned a lot from playing floyd tunes too. i could play most of the wall album on guitar and keyboards from memory, but picking your favourite bands just because you like them the most doesn't really answer the question. it just answers the question as to what is your favourite.
so when it comes to the beatles, as mentioned before, none of them were every considered anywhere near the greatest for musical ability. two of the members wrote some of the greatest songs of all time, but that puts them into consideration for the best composers of all time, which again is a different question, as is suggesting the beatles or any other band because they are hugely influential, such as VU who made a small number of great albums but if you dig a bit deeper you find they made stuff that is pretty unlistenable and their musical talent is limited, just as per many of the other bands put forward, and i'm sure most of the members of those bands, even ones with enourmous ego's like bono would admit they were far from the greatest musicians. and it's great musicians that make a great band. not composing. you wouldn't write off the nelson riddle orchestra because they played music written by other people, would you? it would be like writing of frank sinatra as a great singer because he didn't write any of the songs he sung. his job was a singer and entertainer, not a writer and composer.
thing other thing is, most of the bands people have mentioned are very much pidgeon holed into very specific genres, and not by fans and critics as much as by the bands themselves. the bands choose to record and release the music they want - within record company restrictions of course - but if you look at the bands mentioned, they are very much a rock band that's never played funk music or jazz, or a funk band that's never played rock or country. sly & FS without a doubt is one of the greatest funk bands of all time, one of the most influential, and composed some of the greatest funk tracks, and you can say the same for led zep as far as rock is concerned, but zep never made anything as soulful and meaningful as what's going on, and sly's band never made anything rock like hendrix, and those bands simply couldn't do it either. it's not just a case that they didn't, but more importantly that they couldn't pull it off convincingly.
it's interesting that no-one mentioned santana as that is a band that's been full of very talented musicians who made some great albums. everything seems very much focased towards very obvious mostly 70s era bands that played music very much from one genre, mainly rock, and nothing that explored the directions of music and looked to push the boundaries of music, such as miles davis did with his various bands, including the band used on bitches brew which evolved into weather report. now that's a band full of musicians who could challenge any of the members of any of the bands mentioned here. but few would list such a band as the range of musical knowledge and experience exhibited by posters on this section of the site appears to be extremely limited, thus sticking to the old stones, beatles, who, zep, floyd choices. out of those choices zep by far is the greatest as far as musical ability of each of it's members, but choosing from those bands is like trying to find the best album in hmv by picking from the records in the window
it's interesting that no-one mentioned santana as that is a band that's been full of very talented musicians who made some great albums. everything seems very much focased towards very obvious mostly 70s era bands that played music very much from one genre, mainly rock, and nothing that explored the directions of music and looked to push the boundaries of music, such as miles davis did with his various bands, including the band used on bitches brew which evolved into weather report. now that's a band full of musicians who could challenge any of the members of any of the bands mentioned here. but few would list such a band as the range of musical knowledge and experience exhibited by posters on this section of the site appears to be extremely limited, thus sticking to the old stones, beatles, who, zep, floyd choices. out of those choices zep by far is the greatest as far as musical ability of each of it's members, but choosing from those bands is like trying to find the best album in hmv by picking from the records in the window
I thought the question was aimed at a band with a relatively fixed personnel such as Led Zep, Beatles, U2 etc. That's why I would pick the VU as the best band. Being a bunch of great musicians isn't the main factor. I've seen and heard Weather Report and it wasn't brilliant, in fact it was quite self-indulgent. Maybe I got them on a bad night?
I would see Miles Davis or Van Morrison as essentially solo artists who work in a band context to express their music. But if those kind of artists were to be included then I would argue for Van the Man and his band from the 60s, early 70s and 80s. There is no genre beyond him including Country, Gospel, RnB, Soul and Folk. And he brings a spiritual feel to his singing and his music that sounds like he is more in touch with the Muses than anyone.
I will add my personal favourite, though it isn't a band, and that would be Prince (though he could be a one man band). He pretty much has delved into all genre's (though not always successful), his 80's output was up there with best of anybody.
Pfft. The Beatles were just a bit over-hyped in my humble opinion. It's become blasphemy to suggest they were anything less than the best musicians who ever lived, ever, in the entirety of the universe. All their songs sound the same. Their vocals are unremarkable. Meh.
It's so obviously the Beatles. It's not about personal preference either. The progress they made from start to end of career, the reach of their influence way beyond music, the whole cultural scope of what they achieved, and their music itself obviously. Nobody else touches them taken as a whole.
exactly, well said. others are picking out acts that in one area or another are 'better' then the beatles, thats not in doubt, but to decide who is/was 'the best' you have to take into account the bigger, whole picture. and thats why the beatles would come out on top.
I love The Beatles, but I would never call them the best. Probably the most influential and popular, maybe, but best to me means ability and quality of work. There are other bands out there who have out-excelled The Beatles when it comes to this criteria.
isnt popularity and influence enough? whats wrong with the quality of their work? even today 'revolver' is still considered one of the best, if not the best album of all time.
I thought the question was aimed at a band with a relatively fixed personnel
well that's just making presumptions based on things that haven't been said, and that generally leads to mistakes being made
such as Led Zep, Beatles, U2 etc.
u2 are the only one of those 3 acts who's lineup never changed
That's why I would pick the VU as the best band. Being a bunch of great musicians isn't the main factor.
why not? the point of a band is to play music
I've seen and heard Weather Report and it wasn't brilliant, in fact it was quite self-indulgent. Maybe I got them on a bad night?
possibly, or possibly you simply didn't personally enjoy the experience(s). i could go and see the heavy metal band rated most highly and not enjoy it
I would see Miles Davis or Van Morrison as essentially solo artists who work in a band context to express their music. But if those kind of artists were to be included then I would argue for Van the Man and his band from the 60s, early 70s and 80s. There is no genre beyond him including Country, Gospel, RnB, Soul and Folk. And he brings a spiritual feel to his singing and his music that sounds like he is more in touch with the Muses than anyone.
i wouldn't really say that about miles as he has his classic bands, such as his quintet which someone else mentioned as a reply to best band. i was thinking along those lines but i consider miles mid 70s work around bitches brew era to be the peak of his musical ability, as would many other people, although of course many would also say that they simply don't like the electric miles in a similar way to the early dylan fans being put off when he went electric, or early floyd fans who don't like the post syd material or early mac fans who don't like the post peter green material. some of the stuff miles did around the 70s is pretty unlistenable to some people, and i can completely understand that, especially if you aren't used to the jazz genre. but as miles bitches brew participants didn't have a specific band name, although essentially formed into weather report, it's the closest thing you can get to naming them. but the mahavishnu orchestra are another high standard band too.
as for van the man, not a band as you say, but he made some great albums and some of his live work was outstanding, in particular his more informal shows. i think a lot of people would be surprised if they heard them after not knowing his material at all, as what people think of van and what he does are usually VERY different. the guy can get very soulful and funky
I will add my personal favourite, though it isn't a band, and that would be Prince (though he could be a one man band). He pretty much has delved into all genre's (though not always successful), his 80's output was up there with best of anybody.
yeah, but he's not a band. and i think to be entirely fair, none of his bands even including him should be compared to the other bands. the classic NPG lineup with sonny t and mike b comes close tho, definately his best band
Anyway, Prince from 'Dirty Mind' through to 'Sign O The Times' he was untouchable. One hell of a run of form.
And if he'd have released The Black Album when he was going to, it would have extended even further. As it was, Lovesexy was a bit of a let down.
lovesexy was a great album. thing about prince is he just recorded most of his albums himself. even the "live" tracks on purple rain are mostly overdubbed. that's not wendys guitar on the album version (her first show). the revolution made some great music and wendy & lisa influenced him a huge amount, but the revolution weren't anywhere near as good a band as prince was a solo artist, whilst most of the other bands mentioned have members pretty much equally as strong as each other. you won't see bobby z mentioned in lists of best drummers of all time. although his work with triggers and electronic drums was actually revolutionary and he doesn't get any credit for it, but you need to be very deep into drums to get that
yeah, but he's not a band. and i think to be entirely fair, none of his bands even including him should be compared to the other bands. the classic NPG lineup with sonny t and mike b comes close tho, definately his best band
lovesexy was a great album. thing about prince is he just recorded most of his albums himself. even the "live" tracks on purple rain are mostly overdubbed. that's not wendys guitar on the album version (her first show). the revolution made some great music and wendy & lisa influenced him a huge amount, but the revolution weren't anywhere near as good a band as prince was a solo artist, whilst most of the other bands mentioned have members pretty much equally as strong as each other. you won't see bobby z mentioned in lists of best drummers of all time. although his work with triggers and electronic drums was actually revolutionary and he doesn't get any credit for it, but you need to be very deep into drums to get that
True he's not a band, but then again I think to just call him a solo artist is a little unfair as well, as I say I think he is a one man band, in the fact he can do most things a band can do. With the possible exception of playing live, though he could record all the instrumentation for the backing, but it wouldn't be the same.
I loved Lovesexy as well, I would say he was still great up until the mid 90's in relation to his albums.
u2 are the only one of those 3 acts who's lineup never changed
I did say relatively fixed personnel to include all three, i.e. 2 of the bands didn't change much.
Aristotle suggested that the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. And yes, you would expect Jazz to be the perfect form of music to reflect that. Where brilliant individual musicians combine to produce something better. At their best bands just don't make great music, they make great art.
And that's were the VU come in. The VU are essentially an avant garde band who embraced some of the atonal and noise aspects of modern music and visual and textual elements that actually extended pop culture. Musicianship is about expression as well as technical ability anyway and the VU had expression in abundance. Their musicianship was not a limitation on their ability to make great art. Not many bands can claim that.
Comments
For obvious reasons. They are the greatest band ever in terms of achievements and influence.
Eh? Are you Dave Copping almost grown up? :rolleyes:
Influence wise? I'd go with the band that influenced the Beatles, and who's riffs and melodies appear in chart music still.
Buddy Holly and the Crickets.
no.
It's so obviously the Beatles. It's not about personal preference either. The progress they made from start to end of career, the reach of their influence way beyond music, the whole cultural scope of what they achieved, and their music itself obviously. Nobody else touches them taken as a whole.
... is the right answer.
But maybe equal first place with the first Miles Davis Quintet.
Well said.
Nah, got to be honest and dull. If it's one choice...It's The Beatles for me.
but even as one of my top 5 favourite bands, i acknowledge that not everything they recorded was great and the members aren't all of a standard that would rate them amongst the best in class, especially roger, and i prefer rogers solo work far more than the post-rog floyd. pros and cons is one of my all time favourite albums and i'd say was claptons best guitar work on record. but he's no great singer or bassist or guitarist, but he wrote some of the greatest songs of all time and his recent wall tour is one of the most amazing live experiences of all time.
so i completely disagree it's down to personal opinions, as the bands mentioned were picked solely on merit of musical ability, as opposed to my favourites. again i'm a huge beatles fan, have a ridiculous collection, been to abbey road, met paul macartney, bought the laserdisc, wore the t shirt, and taught myself to play keyboards and guitar from a chord book and a book of beatles songs, because i knew what all the beatles songs sounded like so i knew if i was playing the song right or wrong. i learned a lot from playing floyd tunes too. i could play most of the wall album on guitar and keyboards from memory, but picking your favourite bands just because you like them the most doesn't really answer the question. it just answers the question as to what is your favourite.
so when it comes to the beatles, as mentioned before, none of them were every considered anywhere near the greatest for musical ability. two of the members wrote some of the greatest songs of all time, but that puts them into consideration for the best composers of all time, which again is a different question, as is suggesting the beatles or any other band because they are hugely influential, such as VU who made a small number of great albums but if you dig a bit deeper you find they made stuff that is pretty unlistenable and their musical talent is limited, just as per many of the other bands put forward, and i'm sure most of the members of those bands, even ones with enourmous ego's like bono would admit they were far from the greatest musicians. and it's great musicians that make a great band. not composing. you wouldn't write off the nelson riddle orchestra because they played music written by other people, would you? it would be like writing of frank sinatra as a great singer because he didn't write any of the songs he sung. his job was a singer and entertainer, not a writer and composer.
thing other thing is, most of the bands people have mentioned are very much pidgeon holed into very specific genres, and not by fans and critics as much as by the bands themselves. the bands choose to record and release the music they want - within record company restrictions of course - but if you look at the bands mentioned, they are very much a rock band that's never played funk music or jazz, or a funk band that's never played rock or country. sly & FS without a doubt is one of the greatest funk bands of all time, one of the most influential, and composed some of the greatest funk tracks, and you can say the same for led zep as far as rock is concerned, but zep never made anything as soulful and meaningful as what's going on, and sly's band never made anything rock like hendrix, and those bands simply couldn't do it either. it's not just a case that they didn't, but more importantly that they couldn't pull it off convincingly.
it's interesting that no-one mentioned santana as that is a band that's been full of very talented musicians who made some great albums. everything seems very much focased towards very obvious mostly 70s era bands that played music very much from one genre, mainly rock, and nothing that explored the directions of music and looked to push the boundaries of music, such as miles davis did with his various bands, including the band used on bitches brew which evolved into weather report. now that's a band full of musicians who could challenge any of the members of any of the bands mentioned here. but few would list such a band as the range of musical knowledge and experience exhibited by posters on this section of the site appears to be extremely limited, thus sticking to the old stones, beatles, who, zep, floyd choices. out of those choices zep by far is the greatest as far as musical ability of each of it's members, but choosing from those bands is like trying to find the best album in hmv by picking from the records in the window
I thought the question was aimed at a band with a relatively fixed personnel such as Led Zep, Beatles, U2 etc. That's why I would pick the VU as the best band. Being a bunch of great musicians isn't the main factor. I've seen and heard Weather Report and it wasn't brilliant, in fact it was quite self-indulgent. Maybe I got them on a bad night?
I would see Miles Davis or Van Morrison as essentially solo artists who work in a band context to express their music. But if those kind of artists were to be included then I would argue for Van the Man and his band from the 60s, early 70s and 80s. There is no genre beyond him including Country, Gospel, RnB, Soul and Folk. And he brings a spiritual feel to his singing and his music that sounds like he is more in touch with the Muses than anyone.
Anyway, Prince from 'Dirty Mind' through to 'Sign O The Times' he was untouchable. One hell of a run of form.
And if he'd have released The Black Album when he was going to, it would have extended even further. As it was, Lovesexy was a bit of a let down.
1. ABBA
2. Kraftwerk
3. Pet Shop Boys/Smiths.
Abba and Queen are/were the best.
As far as musicianship, songwriting, singing and influence goes, they're surely top of the pile.
Music is so good at the minute, I love it all.
exactly, well said. others are picking out acts that in one area or another are 'better' then the beatles, thats not in doubt, but to decide who is/was 'the best' you have to take into account the bigger, whole picture. and thats why the beatles would come out on top.
isnt popularity and influence enough? whats wrong with the quality of their work? even today 'revolver' is still considered one of the best, if not the best album of all time.
well that's just making presumptions based on things that haven't been said, and that generally leads to mistakes being made
u2 are the only one of those 3 acts who's lineup never changed
why not? the point of a band is to play music
possibly, or possibly you simply didn't personally enjoy the experience(s). i could go and see the heavy metal band rated most highly and not enjoy it
i wouldn't really say that about miles as he has his classic bands, such as his quintet which someone else mentioned as a reply to best band. i was thinking along those lines but i consider miles mid 70s work around bitches brew era to be the peak of his musical ability, as would many other people, although of course many would also say that they simply don't like the electric miles in a similar way to the early dylan fans being put off when he went electric, or early floyd fans who don't like the post syd material or early mac fans who don't like the post peter green material. some of the stuff miles did around the 70s is pretty unlistenable to some people, and i can completely understand that, especially if you aren't used to the jazz genre. but as miles bitches brew participants didn't have a specific band name, although essentially formed into weather report, it's the closest thing you can get to naming them. but the mahavishnu orchestra are another high standard band too.
as for van the man, not a band as you say, but he made some great albums and some of his live work was outstanding, in particular his more informal shows. i think a lot of people would be surprised if they heard them after not knowing his material at all, as what people think of van and what he does are usually VERY different. the guy can get very soulful and funky
yeah, but he's not a band. and i think to be entirely fair, none of his bands even including him should be compared to the other bands. the classic NPG lineup with sonny t and mike b comes close tho, definately his best band
lovesexy was a great album. thing about prince is he just recorded most of his albums himself. even the "live" tracks on purple rain are mostly overdubbed. that's not wendys guitar on the album version (her first show). the revolution made some great music and wendy & lisa influenced him a huge amount, but the revolution weren't anywhere near as good a band as prince was a solo artist, whilst most of the other bands mentioned have members pretty much equally as strong as each other. you won't see bobby z mentioned in lists of best drummers of all time. although his work with triggers and electronic drums was actually revolutionary and he doesn't get any credit for it, but you need to be very deep into drums to get that
True he's not a band, but then again I think to just call him a solo artist is a little unfair as well, as I say I think he is a one man band, in the fact he can do most things a band can do. With the possible exception of playing live, though he could record all the instrumentation for the backing, but it wouldn't be the same.
I loved Lovesexy as well, I would say he was still great up until the mid 90's in relation to his albums.
I did say relatively fixed personnel to include all three, i.e. 2 of the bands didn't change much.
Aristotle suggested that the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. And yes, you would expect Jazz to be the perfect form of music to reflect that. Where brilliant individual musicians combine to produce something better. At their best bands just don't make great music, they make great art.
And that's were the VU come in. The VU are essentially an avant garde band who embraced some of the atonal and noise aspects of modern music and visual and textual elements that actually extended pop culture. Musicianship is about expression as well as technical ability anyway and the VU had expression in abundance. Their musicianship was not a limitation on their ability to make great art. Not many bands can claim that.
You might want to give "criteria" a Google.