|
||||||||
who is the best band ever? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Reading
Posts: 3,604
|
who is the best band ever?
Not my question, a friend of mine on Face Book, and worded as he did. But it has been doing my head in. So I thought I'd pass it on. Well?
ps. my first thought was Led Zeppelin. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,641
|
There are so many to mention. There will be the iconic bands with longevity like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Then there will be others that made an impact over a shorter period of time like Nirvana.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Crapville
Posts: 13,162
|
There is no 'best band ever' as it is a very subjective question, just like all questions about music, I guess.
For me, I haven't a clue how to decide that as I like a whole lot of bands for a variety of reasons. I suppose I shall stick my neck out and say The Who. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,230
|
The Clash.
And it's not even close. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 343
|
Jools Holland's Rhythm and Blues Orchestra
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
The Velvet Underground
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 🖥⌨🖱
Posts: 29,255
|
I'm waiting for someone to reply 'correct'.
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
They are one of the best bands ever.
Now, if you asked who were the best band ever? That would be a thread starter. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 493
|
There are so many, it's impossible to pick one. Out of those mentioned here, The Velvet Underground, Nirvana and The Clash are certainly among the greatests in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 343
|
Men At Work
Johnny Hates Jazz |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
how do you define 'best'?...
i guess the beatles have had the biggest impact, sold most, is that 'best'? |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In England
Posts: 4,349
|
you'd have to establish criteria to answer the question. Once you've done that and whatever list of criteria you choose, innovation, songwriting, musicianship, influence etc. the answer you'll find will always be The Beatles (whether you personally like em or not is irrelevant)
so The Beatles ![]() second to them i'd put the Smiths and The Clash jointly...but those are personal preferences are more arguable
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,733
|
When it comes to pure musical talent? Led Zeppelin of course!
Four musical geniuses working as one, whilst most bands are lucky to have one. These guys were all at the top of their game for seven albums straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 5,071
|
Nirvana - the who - pink floyd - the clash
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 30,890
|
Quote:
you'd have to establish criteria to answer the question. Once you've done that and whatever list of criteria you choose, innovation, songwriting, musicianship, influence etc. the answer you'll find will always be The Beatles (whether you personally like em or not is irrelevant)
so The Beatles ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
|
Quote:
you'd have to establish criteria to answer the question. Once you've done that and whatever list of criteria you choose, innovation, songwriting, musicianship, influence etc. the answer you'll find will always be The Beatles (whether you personally like em or not is irrelevant)
so The Beatles ![]() second to them i'd put the Smiths and The Clash jointly...but those are personal preferences are more arguable ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
Pink Floyd fill all those criteria too, which they obviously would seeing as they are unquestionably, undeniably, no argument or discussion necessary the best band ever.
threads like this of course always get turned into 'list of favourites' thread, totally unobjective and dont answer the op's question. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,282
|
Quote:
threads like this of course always get turned into 'list of favourites' thread, totally unobjective and dont answer the op's question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
|
Surely it has to be The Saturdays doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
Are you expecting everyone to agree? It's always going to come down to personal taste. For me there are many great artists and I don't really feel the need to pick a winner.
the beatles are far from my fav band, but i cannot think of any other that has done more for music. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
Quote:
Pink Floyd fill all those criteria too, which they obviously would seeing as they are unquestionably, undeniably, no argument or discussion necessary the best band ever.
as for the beatles, well there is no doubt from anyone that they were one of the most influential bands of all time, if not the most influential, and likewise one of the biggest selling bands of all time, if not the biggest. but those things make them either the most influential or biggest selling, not automatically the best. togther they made great music, and likewise in their solo careers. but musically none of them are ever considered to be the greatest at playing any of the instruments they played. if any of them contributed a musical part to someone elses record it wouldn't be as obvious and remarkable as some other artists. if you really wanted a drummer to play on your record, you would only get ringo for the sake of it being ringo, a beatle, or some similar reason, and not because of his drum sound. there is the old saying that he wasn't even the best drummer in the beatles. he certainly wasn't the first either. they were certainly competant and adventurous musicians to a degree, but none of them were up there with the likes of hendrix or bonham when it comes to musical ability. so for sheer musical ability you have to think a little bit wider, to a band who are full of virtuosos who could play anything and outplay anyone, so it would be something like weather report or the mahavishnu orchestra. or you could be a bit more simplistic and choose the wrecking crew or the funk brothers, who between them played on a huge number of the greatest records of all time |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,282
|
Quote:
why is it always going to come down to personal taste? cant people be objective?
the beatles are far from my fav band, but i cannot think of any other that has done more for music. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
|
Quote:
well i'm a floyd fan lucky to see the classic line up and have a considerable floyd collection which includes pretty much all solo work from the main members, and a lot more besides. so i can say quite easily that they aren't the best band ever. main reason is roger waters wasn't exactly a great bass player. he wrote some great tracks, but listen to some of the demos he recorded himself as the perfect example of the lack of his musicianship. in the studio david gilmour would often record the bass parts such as on sheep and one of these days. on the other hand david gilmour, the second guitarist to join the band and not a member of the original line up, is one of the greatest guitarists of all time, and in addition to this he can play most instruments to an acceptable standard. just listen to the version of money on a collection of great dance songs, which is a rerecorded version with dave playing all instruments except the sax. drums, bass, keys and guitar, and all vocals. remember he also played drums for original guitarist syd barrets solo work, as well as being syds guitar teacher. as for the music, well they had that great run of classic albums, but some of the earlier stuff is patchy if not pretty awful, and the later albums aren't a patch on the 70s stuff.
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. :
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: HEED ARMY!!!!!
Posts: 32,092
|
Lancashire Hotpots
/closethread |
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
Because no band is that far ahead of the others for it to be an obvious decision. And not everyone puts sales or influence as the most important factor when it comes to 'best'.
however as has been posted, no matter which criteria you use, the beatles will come out on top. so i disagree that theres 'no band is that far ahead'. there are bands/groups which in some areas might be considered better, but overall?... cant see it myself. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:43.




