ADVERTISEMENT

The best band of all time?

Who is your favorite?

  • Lynyrd Skynryrd

  • Lynyrd Skynryrd

  • Lynyrd Skynryrd

  • Lynyrd Skynryrd

  • Lynyrd Skynryrd


Results are only viewable after voting.
Best band can be interpreted as my favorite band. The scope you gave is way to broad. Although your choices are nice, it may not be everyone's cup of tea. 2 star thread till you list some guidelines
 
tenor.gif
 
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.
 
You Philistines! :D

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.
 
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.

Meh. I'm just talking about the music. Outside of an album and a half it's mediocre.

That said, Free Bird is probably a personal top 10 song of mine.
 
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.

They were famous on the Southern bar circuit for the infighting. Van Zant was a bad ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
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
 
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
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
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.
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).

Its hard to list any that compare or compete without parameters. And I know these aren't bands, and I'm only speaking to a certain aspect they added to music - so...sorry if this is a hijack / diversion:

Les Paul: moved music and recording light years ahead with his inventions, experiments, creations in dubbing, recording, instrument sound, etc

Bob Dylan: though not a great vocalist - he may be the only person I can think of who rivals the Beatles in terms of musicians he influenced across so many generations and genres of music. People don't generally realize how many songs he wrote for other great musicians. A brilliant mind and unmatched lyrical poet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dadika13 and BillyL
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.
Allman Brothers > LS
 
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
Because the country sucks. Everyone knows you need hopelessness, angst, discontent, and bleak prospects for opportunity as inspiration for great music.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
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'm not really a Country fan, but If we're basing it on hits and longevity then what do you do about "Alabama"? Those guys churned out a ton of albums and sold more than 75 million. I would imagine that's more some of the groups that have been named here, and roughly the same as Pink Floyd. They owned Country radio through the 80's and early 90's, had 21 straight #1 hits and a total of 41 chart toppers. Not bad for honky-tonkers.
 
The British, in the wake of the end of WWII, had a very unique experience. The "baby boomers" in the UK were a different breed. They grew up in totally different conditions. And, all of the cultural things that went on in America were amplified even more in Britain. They were probably even more enamored with what was happening here. Americans probably took it more for granted. I've read some biographies about people like Keith Richards and Pete Townshend and how the American influence of music and culture really had a huge impression on them and acted as a muse. They covered a lot of the American bluesmen that really enhanced the careers OF THE bluesmen!
 
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.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT