|
|
Post by antoine010891 on Sept 3, 2008 21:07:34 GMT
To be honest, U2 give me headaches. Or maybe it's just Bono. Also, do the Bee Gees count? They sound like girls to me (yes, I know they're not), and it says no females. I reckon, otherwise, that list is almost bang on, to be honest. I might've had the Stone Roses in there, but I think that's more down to personal choice. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D when I were a little lad my Dad told me they were girls, it wouldn't suprise me if they got rid of the beards and told us they are! |
|
|
|
Post by upton on Sept 3, 2008 21:34:22 GMT
This list is pretty shit to be honest. I mean honestly The Pistols above The Clash we all know it is because Noel and Weller are best mates and Weller always wanted to be Strummer.
|
|
|
|
Post by benraul on Sept 9, 2008 12:15:30 GMT
I saw this list the other day as well.
1: The Beatles
2: The Rolling Stones
3: The Who
4: Sex Pistols
5: The Kinks
6: The La's
7: Pink Floyd
8: The Bee Gees
9: The Specials
10: (Peter Green's) Fleetwood Mac
Its weird. I wouldnt agree with that but it is only my personal opinion of course. If they are going on the greatest guitar bands of all time I think I would find it hard, as some of those bands I dont like.
I really like the La's but find it strange to have them in there considering they only released one album. Normally to define great I would want another top album from a band to see if they are consistant.
Im also not a massive Fleetwood Mac or Pink Floyd fan so I wouldnt include them either.
The Bee Gees would also be excluded.
I am also not the biggest Sex Pistols fan, and think John Lydon is a bit of a prick.
I dont know if I could make a top 10 band list. Beatles would always top one if I did though.
|
|
|
|
Post by fastfuse on Sept 9, 2008 12:26:53 GMT
I saw this list the other day as well. 1: The Beatles 2: The Rolling Stones 3: The Who 4: Sex Pistols 5: The Kinks 6: The La's 7: Pink Floyd 8: The Bee Gees 9: The Specials 10: (Peter Green's) Fleetwood Mac Its weird. I wouldnt agree with that but it is only my personal opinion of course. If they are going on the greatest guitar bands of all time I think I would find it hard, as some of those bands I dont like. I really like the La's but find it strange to have them in there considering they only released one album. Normally to define great I would want another top album from a band to see if they are consistant. Im also not a massive Fleetwood Mac or Pink Floyd fan so I wouldnt include them either. The Bee Gees would also be excluded. I am also not the biggest Sex Pistols fan, and think John Lydon is a bit of a prick. I dont know if I could make a top 10 band list. Beatles would always top one if I did though. I would rather a band made one stunning album (which the la's did) then then continue to relese so-so albums (hate to say it but, OASIS!!) I prefere the Stones to the Beatles (just my opinon) and yeah Lydon is a dog end but his band were quality. Gotta love the pistols |
|
|
|
Post by benraul on Sept 9, 2008 12:44:44 GMT
I saw this list the other day as well. 1: The Beatles 2: The Rolling Stones 3: The Who 4: Sex Pistols 5: The Kinks 6: The La's 7: Pink Floyd 8: The Bee Gees 9: The Specials 10: (Peter Green's) Fleetwood Mac Its weird. I wouldnt agree with that but it is only my personal opinion of course. If they are going on the greatest guitar bands of all time I think I would find it hard, as some of those bands I dont like. I really like the La's but find it strange to have them in there considering they only released one album. Normally to define great I would want another top album from a band to see if they are consistant. Im also not a massive Fleetwood Mac or Pink Floyd fan so I wouldnt include them either. The Bee Gees would also be excluded. I am also not the biggest Sex Pistols fan, and think John Lydon is a bit of a prick. I dont know if I could make a top 10 band list. Beatles would always top one if I did though. I would rather a band made one stunning album (which the la's did) then then continue to relese so-so albums (hate to say it but, OASIS!!) I prefere the Stones to the Beatles (just my opinon) Fair point. But Oasis backed Definetly Maybe up with Whats The Story. It all goes a bit hazy after Be Here Now. But I understand your point, others may well disagree if the Oasis are shit thread is anything to go by. I wasnt slagging off the La's for that. The group was volatile with different members coming and going. But in my opinion to be great you have to reproduce the goods. If I may compare it to football for a second. People last season were saying C Ronaldo was already one of the best players to play the game, for me that is a joke. He has had one remarkable season. When he does it consistantly and proved its not a fluke then you can make such a bold statement. Sort of the same with this in a way. Other bands have reproduced the goods. Who knows, if the La's had stayed together then they may well have done so. I would always have the Beatles over the Stone Roses as well, but again, music is there to offer different opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by fastfuse on Sept 9, 2008 12:57:59 GMT
I would rather a band made one stunning album (which the la's did) then then continue to release so-so albums (hate to say it but, OASIS!!) I prefere the Stones to the Beatles (just my opinion) Fair point. But Oasis backed Definetly Maybe up with Whats The Story. It all goes a bit hazy after Be Here Now. But I understand your point, others may well disagree if the Oasis are sh*t thread is anything to go by. I wasnt slagging off the La's for that. The group was volatile with different members coming and going. But in my opinion to be great you have to reproduce the goods. If I may compare it to football for a second. People last season were saying C Ronaldo was already one of the best players to play the game, for me that is a joke. He has had one remarkable season. When he does it consistently and proved its not a fluke then you can make such a bold statement. Sort of the same with this in a way. Other bands have reproduced the goods. Who knows, if the La's had stayed together then they may well have done so. I would always have the Beatles over the Stone Roses as well, but again, music is there to offer different opinions. Its was the Rolling Stones not the Roses. I just think they they had better tunes, someone wrote on the "oasis are shit"thread something along the lines of 'I think people only like them because they think they should' I think that applies to the Beatles. Yes they did some ground breaking stuff, not to be repeated but MY GOD. DID THEY RECORD SOME sh*t!! Really its criminal, I like em but i think its more Musical Romance than pure quality that keep them going and while im touching on this point McCartney......The Frog Song!!! Are you having that???...because I'm not. He should have been banned from every recording studio for 10 years after that its was AWFUL!!! Theres one reason and one reason only for no la's follow up...SMACK. Heart breaking and I dont think were ever going to see another La's Album. f**k**g WASTED TALENT. It pains me, I w ish I had what he had!!! |
|
|
|
Post by benraul on Sept 9, 2008 13:16:58 GMT
Fair point. But Oasis backed Definetly Maybe up with Whats The Story. It all goes a bit hazy after Be Here Now. But I understand your point, others may well disagree if the Oasis are sh*t thread is anything to go by. I wasnt slagging off the La's for that. The group was volatile with different members coming and going. But in my opinion to be great you have to reproduce the goods. If I may compare it to football for a second. People last season were saying C Ronaldo was already one of the best players to play the game, for me that is a joke. He has had one remarkable season. When he does it consistently and proved its not a fluke then you can make such a bold statement. Sort of the same with this in a way. Other bands have reproduced the goods. Who knows, if the La's had stayed together then they may well have done so. I would always have the Beatles over the Stone Roses as well, but again, music is there to offer different opinions. Its was the Rolling Stones not the Roses. I just think they they had better tunes, someone wrote on the "oasis are shit"thread something along the lines of 'I think people only like them because they think they should' I think that applies to the Beatles. Yes they did some ground breaking stuff, not to be repeated but MY GOD. DID THEY RECORD SOME sh*t!! Really its criminal, I like em but i think its more Musical Romance than pure quality that keep them going and while im touching on this point McCartney......The Frog Song!!! Are you having that???...because I'm not. He should have been banned from every recording studio for 10 years after that its was AWFUL!!! Theres one reason and one reason only for no la's follow up...SMACK. Heart breaking and I dont think were ever going to see another La's Album. f**k**g WASTED TALENT. It pains me, I w ish I had what he had!!! Rolling Stones would have made more sense. Rolling Stones are second for me. I think it was me who said I believe people like Oasis because they think they are supposed to. I can totally see that with the Beatles. I am 23 but love the Beatles. Grew up listening to them so that is why I love them. But the times change. One of my friends hates the Beatles in general. Doesnt like any of their songs but loves todays scene. Not sure about that but each to their own. Paul McCartney though is over rated. I know all of what you just mentioned about the La's. I stand by what I said. It does my head in when people waste their talent. George Best for example going back to the football theme. Could have put to rest the debate of who was the best ever player if he didnt go down the various paths he did. The facts are that they did go down those paths. The La's for me didnt reproduce the good. The reasons are surely irrelavent? |
|
|
|
Post by fastfuse on Sept 9, 2008 13:50:42 GMT
Its was the Rolling Stones not the Roses. I just think they they had better tunes, someone wrote on the "oasis are shit"thread something along the lines of 'I think people only like them because they think they should' I think that applies to the Beatles. Yes they did some ground breaking stuff, not to be repeated but MY GOD. DID THEY RECORD SOME sh*t!! Really its criminal, I like em but i think its more Musical Romance than pure quality that keep them going and while I'm touching on this point McCartney......The Frog Song!!! Are you having that???...because I'm not. He should have been banned from every recording studio for 10 years after that its was AWFUL!!! Theres one reason and one reason only for no la's follow up...SMACK. Heart breaking and I don't think were ever going to see another La's Album. f**k**g WASTED TALENT. It pains me, I w ish I had what he had!!! Rolling Stones would have made more sense. Rolling Stones are second for me. I think it was me who said I believe people like Oasis because they think they are supposed to. I can totally see that with the Beatles. I am 23 but love the Beatles. Grew up listening to them so that is why I love them. But the times change. One of my friends hates the Beatles in general. Doesn't like any of their songs but loves todays scene. Not sure about that but each to their own. Paul McCartney though is over rated. I know all of what you just mentioned about the La's. I stand by what I said. It does my head in when people waste their talent. George Best for example going back to the football theme. Could have put to rest the debate of who was the best ever player if he didn't go down the various paths he did. The facts are that they did go down those paths. The La's for me didn't reproduce the good. The reasons are surely irrelevant? Oh yeah totally no one held a gun to Lee Mathers head, and made him choose smack, I just find it really sad!! At least George Best played to his potential, he won the league with united and the European Cup. Everyone is aware of how stupidly talented he was he didn't knock it all on the head after one season. Lee Mather never really got into his stride due to his drug intake and his ridicules recording methods/demands (genuine 60's dust in the studio etc etc) |
|
|
|
Post by upton on Sept 9, 2008 14:13:08 GMT
I really don't get why people would put The Pistols in their top ten I mean not only are The Clash a lot better but they have one of the best Bass Players ever and Frontmen, The Pistols have a dickhead in Johnny Rotten and THE worst Bass player of all time in Sid Vicious.
|
|
|
|
Post by fastfuse on Sept 9, 2008 14:30:37 GMT
Sid never played on any pistols record's he joined after they recorded NMTB to be fair he was shit half the time he was never plugged in!!
But punk was never about how well you played your instruments it was more about the message and doing your own thing
|
|
|
|
Post by upton on Sept 9, 2008 15:13:23 GMT
Yeah the Steve Jones did... The Clash are a better band than The Pistols all they had over The Clash was that they came first that is about it nothing else is better what so ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fergal on Sept 9, 2008 15:36:33 GMT
Correct, though the Pistol's album was a bit better than the Clash's first album, the Clash burned NMTB later on with London Calling
|
|
|
|
Post by fastfuse on Sept 9, 2008 15:43:37 GMT
Fair enough, I think the clash are over rated....I dont get it. I've tried (maybe I should try again)
But I love NMTB because its just so "f*ck OFF!!" Rotten couldn't sing, Sid couldn't play but it dosn't matter. It was new and fresh and they never had the chance to f*ck the legacy up because they only did one album.
|
|
|
|
Post by upton on Sept 9, 2008 16:33:58 GMT
The Clash are amazing man each to their own though.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontask on Oct 8, 2008 9:09:02 GMT
id have to have jimi hendrix experience in my top 10.
|
|
