Greatest bands ever?

[Andy Taylor]

Now I think there's no proper answer to this question. It was easy to say the Beatles. I was a hardcore Beatle fan for close to a decade. Now what happens when all those melodies don't sound so amazing anymore? Now I think Duran Duran's songs hold up better than most Beatle ones and albums. Zeppelin are an almost outright cover band.

I read a Chic biography, Nile and Bernard are amazing. They share a record with the Beatles. Writing and recording 12 albums in 7 years. And while this might have been common in the 60s who did that in the late 70s/80s? And the anthems they wrote? Le Freak, Good Times, We are family, He's the greatest dancer, Upside Down, it goes on. There's every reason to say Chic are as good as or possibly better than the Beatles.

I'm not into most Iron Maiden anymore. Maybe it's just that I grew out of it. But some of those mid 80s albums had a quality (I think still think 7th son has this) that I would have said made Maiden the best band ever. Even today, Maiden is the band I have been a fan of longest and I got into them way before Beatles. There's a lot going on in Maiden, so you keep coming back to it.

Where do bands like King Crimson, Roxy, Bowie, Eno not to mention jazz and hip hop, rnb fit in? Is it fair to say that the hierarchy is totally accurate? Beatles/Zep/Stones/Floyd? I never understood the Stones fully, but as a former Beatles fan I can say that some of their stuff is overrated shit. Drive my car is a perfect example. So is a third of Sgt. Pepper. Good morning? Lovely Rita?? All that stuff is shit. Based on some of this I'd say the whole idea of any of these bands being at the top is wrong. I say Duran could quite easily be the best band ever as could Chic, Maiden or Van Halen or perhaps a 100 other bands we've never heard. There's too much of an association of blues based music with quality.

[LoungeMachine]

Okay, I'll be the one to post it.

CVH

[Andy Taylor]

Well it wasn't that kind of thread really although you could ofcourse go ahead and list yours. It was more about questioning the validity of the rock aristocracy.

[Panamark]

Can I be the first to say I think Duran Duran suck, and have a hard time
putting them in the same sentence as The Beatles and Led Zep ??
However, I would like to thank them for the unedited "Girls on Film" video
for when I was just starting to learn how to paddle the porpoise...

[sadaist]

I think a band is considered big not just due to popularity, but staying power and influence amongst others. The Rolling Stones & The Who come to mind right away for me. Hugely successful & widely copied. Same with Van Halen. Most of the 80's rock acts took something (if not everything) from VH. Duran Duran? I don't know. They were huge but lacked the staying power. Not sure how many other artists were actually influenced by them, or if DD was more a product of just fitting into the genre. They're more like the Motley Crue of their style of music. Very popular with good songs, but didn't really create any new sounds or styles that others copied.

[sadaist]

Can I be the first to say I think Duran Duran suck

You're 25 years late on that one.....

[Panamark]

You're 25 years late on that one.....

Hey I was the first back then too !

To answer the first post, everyone to their own, but this place seems
to be mostly Hard Rock / Rock / Metal Influenced.

In terms of these genres and who was responsible..

The Beatles
Black Sabbath
Led Zeppelin

To this day the above 3 still hold the greatest influence
over any credible Rock/Metal band... You could go back further,
or come forward further and more bands would be included.
But to me, those are the big 3.

[hideyoursheep]

Hey I was the first back then too !

Maybe second, definitely first today!

[FORD]

Greatest band ever? That's easy....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uL2Ee12HrCU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uL2Ee12HrCU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Panamark]

Stones are up there, but evolved from the Beatles
in my humble opinion... I know the Beatles recorded
first, and the Stones physchodelic stuff seemed
to "follow" the Beatles... The stones stuff was
great, but like the Beach Boys, they were
followers of the beatles.

The Beatles released great material to the end too...

[cadaverdog]

Now I think there's no proper answer to this question. It was easy to say the Beatles. I was a hardcore Beatle fan for close to a decade. Now what happens when all those melodies don't sound so amazing anymore? Now I think Duran Duran's songs hold up better than most Beatle ones and albums. Zeppelin are an almost outright cover band.

I read a Chic biography, Nile and Bernard are amazing. They share a record with the Beatles. Writing and recording 12 albums in 7 years. And while this might have been common in the 60s who did that in the late 70s/80s? And the anthems they wrote? Le Freak, Good Times, We are family, He's the greatest dancer, Upside Down, it goes on. There's every reason to say Chic are as good as or possibly better than the Beatles.

I'm not into most Iron Maiden anymore. Maybe it's just that I grew out of it. But some of those mid 80s albums had a quality (I think still think 7th son has this) that I would have said made Maiden the best band ever. Even today, Maiden is the band I have been a fan of longest and I got into them way before Beatles. There's a lot going on in Maiden, so you keep coming back to it.

Where do bands like King Crimson, Roxy, Bowie, Eno not to mention jazz and hip hop, rnb fit in? Is it fair to say that the hierarchy is totally accurate? Beatles/Zep/Stones/Floyd? I never understood the Stones fully, but as a former Beatles fan I can say that some of their stuff is overrated shit. Drive my car is a perfect example. So is a third of Sgt. Pepper. Good morning? Lovely Rita?? All that stuff is shit. Based on some of this I'd say the whole idea of any of these bands being at the top is wrong. I say Duran could quite easily be the best band ever as could Chic, Maiden or Van Halen or perhaps a 100 other bands we've never heard. There's too much of an association of blues based music with quality.

I'm not a big Beatles fan but I could see why some would say they were the best .
Zep a cover band?
They did borrow (or steal) a lot of material from the old bluesmen.
But they had a lot of great orginal stuff too.
Duran Duran?
Are you high or brain damaged?
The Stones , The Who , Foyd , Sabbath
and many more could be considered.

But there is no way to really choose the best.
Best in an individuals opinion .
But opinions vary.
In someones opinion Flock of Seagulls or Bananarama might
be the best.

[ELVIS]

but as a former Beatles fan I can say that some of their stuff is overrated shit. Drive my car is a perfect example. So is a third of Sgt. Pepper. Good morning? Lovely Rita?? All that stuff is shit.

So, I suppose the generations and millions of fans are wrong...

BTW, this is quite a broad topic...

[Mr Badguy]

If I had to pick one band with amazing chemistry:

Deep Purple (circa 1972)

The playing on "Made in Japan" is amazing.

However, I never thought they wrote enough strong songs to match their virtuosity.

The same line up in 1984 was no where near as good.

[twonabomber]

without MTV, Duran Duran would have been nothing.

Nile Rodgers...great producer.

[Andy Taylor]

So, I suppose the generations and millions of fans are wrong...

BTW, this is quite a broad topic...

Dude, you don't know me. I was a Beatles obsessive for close to a decade. And I'm here to tell you that entire generations and millions of Beatle fans CAN be wrong.

The question of not only Duran but many other bands, Maiden or Chic for example is tied in with this. People have this built in criteria that comes from decades of conditioning that says certain types of music are more legitimate. It is not based on any real musical judgement it simply exists. According to this music has to be blues based or black in origin. That's why you see all the obscure rn'b acts from the 30s and even 70s getting in ahead of Kiss, Sabbath and the Moody Blues to name a few. The Stones... why does music have be dirty, gritty and suitable for accompaniement with a bottle of bourbon?

We're talking about influence right? Chic (I believe Dave loves them too) are THE most sampled group in history, most of all by hip hop artists and also by rock artists. People like Queen stole their bass line for Good Times. The guitar riff in Good Times has been modified (stolen) and used by The Clash and many others. Maybe if Chic were officially RNB they would be in the rock hall. But no, they were officially branded disco, even though they had numerous influences... and the guys in the band are virtuosos, Tony Thompson, Nile, Bernard... hardly disco sucks material. Their influence is probably as great as the Beatles except their audience wouldn't have grown up to be self-important rock journo geeks.

Duran's impact? A good portion of the big bands of this decade and the last name Duran as one of their major influences. Most of these bands are crap imo, but the Black Crowes are hardly in Zeppelin's league either. Duran influenced Beck, Smashing Pumpkins, The Killers, Korn, Deftones, Mark Ronson, Moby, Dandy Warhols, Wyclef Jean's a big fan, EVH said Andy T was a fave of his at one point and Steve Vai called up Warren Cuccurullo to say how much he liked his playing on a Duran album. Duran is in one way comparable to the Beatles. All their popular songs are of the same kind as the Beatles early stuff, meaning it was fluff like I want to hold your hand. I never cared for that stuff from the Beatles, I liked Revolver. It's the same with Duran, their album songs are way better than what they're known for. But even songs like Girls on film are great songs and very influential. The problem is most people are stuck in a classic rock rut. Duran sort of mixed rock and dance in a way no one had done before.

I'm not in awe of the Beatles anymore, half the stuff on Pepper was crap and is clearly the effect of endless hype. The critics have been behind certain groups for ever and they have trashed others for as long. I've been reading one article for example and it's more proof that these people hardly even listen to what they're reviewing; they're busy breaking everything down to carefully analyse it. That's the problem. I did that sometimes too and later I found that Sgt. Pepper isn't great to listen to.