By my humble opinion..There are 6 GREAT bands of all time

PJStatTracker · November 2013

YLed2 wrote:

And I really hate to say this, but if we are adding a list of solo/individuals of all time, you have to add Michael Jackson to that list. You just have to.

Absolutely. Easily one of the greats, although that opens the door to all the non-rock greats, of which there are plenty.

DewieCox · November 2013

I agree he's one of the greats and immensely talented, but did he write any of his music?

TK31831 · November 2013

I think my post took many different directions..first off, it is Greatest Bands..Not individual performers..And by that I meant most influential, biggest following along with great music..Also, this was in the scope of the world..Not necessarily people who know what good music is

..I personally, do not like U2 but I think it's safe to say they are the biggest rock band of the last 25 years..

PJStatTracker · November 2013

DewieCox wrote:

I agree he's one of the greats and immensely talented, but did he write any of his music?

MJ? Yes, he did.

jumbojet · November 2013

I think there are 3 only:

Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Pearl Jam

I cannot be objective, certainly.

The reason Beatles is not here is they are not relevant anymore. They can be a game-changer at their time but I don't think anyone would think of giving a spin to Yellow Submarine after a good dose of Rearviewmirror.

jumbojet · November 2013

jimc3 wrote:

(bands only)

I think the big 4 of the Beatles, Stones, Led Zep and the Who are all lock must-haves 1st tier, Mt Rushmore immortals.

I think the 2nd grouping (had the magic of the big 4 but not for long enough) is Floyd, Doors, Radiohead, Hendrix/Experience

third tier (ie at one point lit the WORLD on FIRE, but are just short of immortal) would be Beach Boys, U2, Ramones, Springsteen/E St, Prince/Revolution, Police, Clash, Aerosmith, Sabbath, Nirvana

4th tier (super-special, super-talented but just missing that thunder-god gene) would be REM, Niel Young/CH, Queen, G Dead, Ramones, Velvet U, Petty/Heartbreakers

All that being said, I think it's fair to slot Pearl Jam somewhere in the higher end of the 3rd tier.

additional thoughts:

I would love to see the Pixies, Husker Du, Dinosaur Jr, Buzzcocks, Mission of Burma, Minutemen more into these conversations, but obviously they never had the wide commercial appeal.

I also love S'garden, AIC, Pumpkins, Peppers and even Green Daybut they just miss the GREAT level

personally don't think Metallica, ACDC, J Priest, Van Halen, GnR deserve to make this list. and I like "metal".

aside from that, I don't get how Spoon never gets mentioned AT ALL in these conversations. they're not young pups anymore. they have more than a handful of incredible albums, are studio wizards AND live gems, and are absolute critical darlings. I know they only took off on the radio a tiny bit once, but I feel like history will judge them well.

This could be a nice read… If it was in Rolling Stones magazine.

Sorry but I read enough of stuff in mass-media about Pearl Jam being a 3rd echelon kind of band so why do I have to read it again in PJ forum site? I think PJ is as good as anyone.

brianlux · November 2013

TK31831 wrote:

I think my post took many different directions..first off, it is Greatest Bands..Not individual performers..And by that I meant most influential, biggest following along with great music..Also, this was in the scope of the world..Not necessarily people who know what good music is ..I personally, do not like U2 but I think it's safe to say they are the biggest rock band of the last 25 years..

That did happen, probably because it's the Porch where threads often fray and become off-kilter tops spinning all over the place. The other problem is, like any similar threads, the word "greatest" opens the door to interpretation. If we take "greatest" (bands, not individuals) to mean most sale, then it's simply a matter of numbers. Bands in the 250 million records or more category are The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd only. After them, in the 200 to 250 million sales numbers comes AC/DC, Queen and finally The Rolling Stones. I don't think anyone here has yet listed AC/DC or Queen in their top six. So there you have it, it's all subjective.

PJStatTracker · November 2013

jumbojet wrote:

The reason Beatles is not here is they are not relevant anymore.

:shock:

PJStatTracker · November 2013

TK31831 wrote:

I think my post took many different directions..first off, it is Greatest Bands..Not individual performers..And by that I meant most influential, biggest following along with great music..Also, this was in the scope of the world..Not necessarily people who know what good music is ..I personally, do not like U2 but I think it's safe to say they are the biggest rock band of the last 25 years..

Let's not forget about Garth Brook, y'all!

NewJPage · November 2013

jumbojet wrote:

The reason Beatles is not here is they are not relevant anymore. They can be a game-changer at their time but I don't think anyone would think of giving a spin to Yellow Submarine after a good dose of Rearviewmirror.

I nominate this for the "most insane statement in the history of the internet" award

jumbojet · November 2013

NewJPage wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

The reason Beatles is not here is they are not relevant anymore. They can be a game-changer at their time but I don't think anyone would think of giving a spin to Yellow Submarine after a good dose of Rearviewmirror.

I nominate this for the "most insane statement in the history of the internet" award

Tnx. I have lots of those, so don't be quick to make that judgement.

Now go give a spin to Porch and then Strawberry fields forever consecutively to enjoy yourself.

jumbojet · November 2013

PJStatTracker wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

The reason Beatles is not here is they are not relevant anymore.

:shock:

Yes. With all due respect to Beatles, it is not the kind of music the world in 2013 would listen now.

PJStatTracker · November 2013

jumbojet wrote:

PJStatTracker wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

The reason Beatles is not here is they are not relevant anymore.

:shock:

Yes. With all due respect to Beatles, it is not the kind of music the world in 2013 would listen now.

Yet Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin are?

DewieCox · November 2013

NewJPage wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

The reason Beatles is not here is they are not relevant anymore. They can be a game-changer at their time but I don't think anyone would think of giving a spin to Yellow Submarine after a good dose of Rearviewmirror.

I nominate this for the "most insane statement in the history of the internet" award

Seconded... I can hear some of the Beatles effect in virtually every album I listen to, whether it's something closer to their era or my top favorite albums this year.

It doesn't have to be something that would hypothetically be successful in the modern age to still be relevant.

jumbojet · November 2013

PJStatTracker wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Yes. With all due respect to Beatles, it is not the kind of music the world in 2013 would listen now.

Yet Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin are?

Absolutely.
I think of Michelle-my belle and I cannot even think of comparing that kind of music to what PF and LZ have done.

What I'm saying is Michelle-my belle might have been good for the standards from 45 years ago. But PF and LZ music still stand today. At least, IMHO.

jumbojet · November 2013

DewieCox wrote:

NewJPage wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

The reason Beatles is not here is they are not relevant anymore. They can be a game-changer at their time but I don't think anyone would think of giving a spin to Yellow Submarine after a good dose of Rearviewmirror.

I nominate this for the "most insane statement in the history of the internet" award

Seconded... I can hear some of the Beatles effect in virtually every album I listen to, whether it's something closer to their era or my top favorite albums this year.

It doesn't have to be something that would hypothetically be successful in the modern age to still be relevant.

For sure it has an effect. Just like your childhood has an effect on your personality all throughout your life. Beatles is the childhood of todays music.
When you are an adult, you only wanna play childhood games occasionally or rarely. (unless with your own kid)
If Beatles had songs like Shine on you crazy diamond, it'd be different but they have songs like Lucy in the sky with diamonds. Kids stuff for today's standards. I play them to my 3-month old to get to sleep.

PJStatTracker · November 2013

jumbojet wrote:

PJStatTracker wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Yes. With all due respect to Beatles, it is not the kind of music the world in 2013 would listen now.

Yet Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin are?

Absolutely.
I think of Michelle-my belle and I cannot even think of comparing that kind of music to what PF and LZ have done.

What I'm saying is Michelle-my belle might have been good for the standards from 45 years ago. But PF and LZ music still stand today. At least, IMHO.

Well, I understand that you personally do not enjoy them. I have no problem with that...the world needs all types.

But I think it's safe to say that the Beatles catalog is played more on a daily basis worldwide than Floyd, Zep, and PJ combined. I'm currently traveling in Ukraine and the only band I've heard more than Daft Punk is the Beatles. People still listen to them whether you do or not.

DewieCox · November 2013

jumbojet wrote:

[
For sure it has an effect. Just like your childhood has an effect on your personality all throughout your life. Beatles is the childhood of todays music.
When you are an adult, you only wanna play childhood games occasionally or rarely. (unless with your own kid)
If Beatles had songs like Shine on you crazy diamond, it'd be different but they have songs like Lucy in the sky with diamonds. Kids stuff for today's standards. I play them to my 3-month old to get to sleep.

I think that's some pretty strange logic. The fact that a lot of their music is kid safe really has nothing to so with the fact that they're still influencing most popular music the we hear.

I can kinda see your point that Zeppelin and Floyd sounds less dated, but that really has to do with the huge leaps in production that happened between their runs and is largely a consequence of paths that the Beatles, and really all 3 bands blazed.

jumbojet · November 2013

PJStatTracker wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Absolutely.
I think of Michelle-my belle and I cannot even think of comparing that kind of music to what PF and LZ have done.

What I'm saying is Michelle-my belle might have been good for the standards from 45 years ago. But PF and LZ music still stand today. At least, IMHO.

Well, I understand that you personally do not enjoy them. I have no problem with that...the world needs all types.

But I think it's safe to say that the Beatles catalog is played more on a daily basis worldwide than Floyd, Zep, and PJ combined. I'm currently traveling in Ukraine and the only band I've heard more than Daft Punk is the Beatles. People still listen to them whether you do or not.

OK then, your traveling in Ukraine and coming across Beatles has solved this issue.

I don't say I don't enjoy Beatles. I've grown up listening to them. But I was 11-13 years old at that time.
If you happen to go through Moscow, let me take you to a few record stores and compare PF and LZ stands and the Beatles stand.

brianlux · November 2013

The Beatles were my favorite group for about two months in 1964. That's it. But to say they are irrelevant today would...

...well that would...

... I mean really...

By my humble opinion..There are 6 GREAT bands of all time

Comments

Categories