We've already done the rock band tournament. I'm not even sure if Skynyrd made the field.Who is the best?
Pffft. Get a load of the new guy.Who is the best?
You Philistines!
To me, Skynyrd isn't even top 10.
So this isn't popular because the main reason they aren't top 10 is because of the tragic plane crash but the fact remains, they just didn't have the output of countless other great bands. Their first album is a classic but outside of SHA, their second album is meh. The next two were average and Street Survivors was better but not classic.
When comparing this to The Beatles, Stones, Zepplin, Pink Floyd, Beach Boys, Eagles, etc. it's just tough because there's just not enough great material for Skynyrd. They fall into the same spot Nirvana does for me, more of a what could have been.
I agree that their time was cut short, and that was a tragedy. I think a bigger problem was that they didn't play by industry rules. They would fight other bands, fight each other, and just do whatever they wanted to do. The critics hated them for this.
I agree that their time was cut short, and that was a tragedy. I think a bigger problem was that they didn't play by industry rules. They would fight other bands, fight each other, and just do whatever they wanted to do. The critics hated them for this.
We've already done the rock band tournament. I'm not even sure if Skynyrd made the field.
I've often wondered the same thing.How is it the brits produce so much more great musical artists per capita than the US?
Yeah, I remember bringing that up in the rock tournament. I guess the brits didn't care about the cultural appropriation of black music as much as we used to.How is it the brits produce so much more great musical artists per capita than the US? My top 10
Beatles-brit
Zep-brit
Rolling stones-brit
Who-brit
PINk floyd-brit
Queen-brit
Metallica-us
Ac dc-aussie
Guns n roses-us
NIRvana-us
Excellent post making a solid case for the Beatles. Hard to argue. You didn't even mention all the post-Beatles successes (Wings, solo accomplishments).My argument for the Beatles:
- They had virtually no precedence for the fame that they received. Aside from Popes, they were literally the most famous people to ever live in 1964. Yet...they didn't really screw it up. Sure by 1968 they were splintered but I'd argue they were splintered because they were so good that the 3 of them couldn't be held in a group where they get 3 songs per album (and Yoko Ono obviously sucks).
- They got better with each album...at least from PPM to Abbey Road (Let it Be was never supposed to be released). How many bands can say over 7 years that they just kept getting better?
- They made sounds that you never heard before. Using some of the shittiest technology music has ever seen they made innovations that required studios to be rebuilt to keep up with the sound future bands wanted to imitate. Again, how many bands can say that?
- Output. They had record execs hounding them for more and more albums which led to 12 LPs, 4 movies, and 20 #1 singles in 9 years.
- Imitation. From the Stones, to Zepplin, to Fleetwood Mac, to the Eagles, to Nirvana, etc.. All of these amazing bands teeter somewhere between influenced and straight up copying the Beatles.
Allman Brothers > LSTo me, Skynyrd isn't even top 10.
So this isn't popular because the main reason they aren't top 10 is because of the tragic plane crash but the fact remains, they just didn't have the output of countless other great bands. Their first album is a classic but outside of SHA, their second album is meh. The next two were average and Street Survivors was better but not classic.
When comparing this to The Beatles, Stones, Zepplin, Pink Floyd, Beach Boys, Eagles, etc. it's just tough because there's just not enough great material for Skynyrd. They fall into the same spot Nirvana does for me, more of a what could have been.
Allman Brothers > LS
Because the country sucks. Everyone knows you need hopelessness, angst, discontent, and bleak prospects for opportunity as inspiration for great music.How is it the brits produce so much more great musical artists per capita than the US? My top 10
Beatles-brit
Zep-brit
Rolling stones-brit
Who-brit
PINk floyd-brit
Queen-brit
Metallica-us
Ac dc-aussie
Guns n roses-us
NIRvana-us
To me, Skynyrd isn't even top 10.
So this isn't popular because the main reason they aren't top 10 is because of the tragic plane crash but the fact remains, they just didn't have the output of countless other great bands. Their first album is a classic but outside of SHA, their second album is meh. The next two were average and Street Survivors was better but not classic.
When comparing this to The Beatles, Stones, Zepplin, Pink Floyd, Beach Boys, Eagles, etc. it's just tough because there's just not enough great material for Skynyrd. They fall into the same spot Nirvana does for me, more of a what could have been.
The Beatles.
The Stones.
Zeppelin
Pink Floyd.
Beach Boys.
Eagles.
Nirvana.
I like a handful of Eagles' songs a lot. The "History of the Eagles" on Netflix was cool. It's more interesting to find out about them than lisetn to their music. Those cowboy/western-y ballad-y songs are awful- Tequila Sunrise, Peaceful, Easy Feelin'... ugh.
I like a handful of Eagles' songs a lot. The "History of the Eagles" on Netflix was cool. It's more interesting to find out about them than lisetn to their music. Those cowboy/western-y ballad-y songs are awful- Tequila Sunrise, Peaceful, Easy Feelin'... ugh.
I hate Free Bird!
Best band is easy...