10 best commercially successful rock bands of all times (SUBJECTIVE list)
Raja, The Great
this is not a GOAT (Greatest of All time) list, this is more like a
BOAT (Best of all time list). My criterion is simple - who made the
most MINUTES of artistically successful and still enjoyable music.
This is highly subjective, but I have heard all the so-called best
rock bands ever and this is my judgement.
01. Led Zeppelin
In my opinion they were untouchable in the first six albums (1968-74).
{Note: Physical Graffiti's recording was complete by Feb 1974} Then
some bad luck and decadence set in. They have enough great songs to
fill up 4 discs.
02. Yes
These guys were at their best for the same period as Led Zeppelin
(1968-74). They recorded 7 albums during this period - one more than
Led Zeppelin. But they had some misses - the sophomore foolishness
(Time And A Word) of recording with an orchestra and the unfocused and
padded double album Tales From Topographic Oceans. They did have five
great album in the form of Yes, The Yes Album, Fragile, Close To The
Edge and Relayer. They also have enough great songs to fill up 4 discs
(if you include their best epics in their entirety)
03. Pink Floyd
These guys in my opinion could be a hit or miss. They were still
making good albums as late as 1967. Their best period was from
1967-79. They made three excellent albums (The Piper At The Gates of
Dawn, Atom Heart Mother, The Dark Side Of The Moon) and also some
other good albums like (A Saucerful Of Secrets, Meddle, Wish You Were
Here and The Wall). But also had half-arsed attempts like those two
soundtracks, Ummagumma and the unmemorable Animals. They also have
enough great song to fill up 4 discs (if you include their best epics
in their entirety)
04. Beatles.
They recorded a hell out of great songs. But majority of them were
about 2 minutes. So they definitely did not record the most minutes of
great music. I think they have enough material to fill up 3 discs.
They made 11 albums, none of which were bad, not even Beatles For Sale
or Let It Be. But every album (except Sgt Pepper) has at least 4 songs
I do not like (or think are any good). So there is hardly a Beatles
album in which I would not be busy with a skip button.
05. Rolling Stones
Quite similar to Beatles in terms of making 2-3 commercial pop-
oriented songs. And their peaks coincided with Beatles. I do not think
they were really that good in the 70s (except Sticky Fingers). But at
their best they were very good but just not as consistent as the
Beatles. They suffered the same problem of having one too many songs
on their albums. Their best albums in my opinion are Out Of Our Heads
(US version), Aftermath, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky
Fingers. The others are quite average. They have enough material to
fill about 2.5 discs.
06. Deep Purple
Short peak (1970-72). Their first line up was decent, but recorded not
much original material some of which was patchy. Their second line up
was a roll until the egos started destroying the band. Their best
albums are Deep Purple in Rock, Fireball, Machine Head and Made in
Japan. They have enough material to fill 2 discs only. If they didnt
have those ego issues, they could have been a much greater band.
07. Black Sabbath
Similar to Deep Purple in the sense that their peak lasted for three
years only (1969-71). Their first three albums have memorable stuff
and great riff heavy music. Then they became stale and predictable.
They also have enough material to fill 2 discs only. Drugs rather than
egos destroyed this band
08. The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Even shorter peak than Deep Purple and Black Sabbath. In fact they
lasted only three albums. But they did however record great music in
all three albums. I like the debut the best, but the other two or not
bad. They have enough material to fill up 1.5 disc in my opinion.
09. The Who
These guys were slightly like Floyd. Were good for quite a long time
(1965-73). But very hit or miss. Their only real consistent album was
Whos Next. Who Sell Out is second best in my opinion. Both their
double albums had too many fillers (I like Tommy much better). The
debut was decent as well. I think they have enough material to fill
1.5 discs.
10. Queen
Pretty much like Beatles in the 70s. A lot of pop oriented and vastly
popular songs. But their albums are all average (except A Night At The
Opera which is slightly better than average). Their best songs happen
to pop sounding so they are the most pop of the lot along with the
Beatles. They have enough great material to fill 1.5 discs as well.
All these 10 albums had high charting albums in both US and UK. Not
many others did. I don't think any of the 80s-00s bands have been this
good in terms of artistic quality. The biggest problem with many of
the latter bands are they were too much derivative of one or more of
these 10 bands.
Quincy
We need some more lists.
-10 best commercially unsuccessful rock bands
-10 worst commercially unsuccessful rock bands
-10 worst commercially successful rock bands
etc.
who?
You read my mind.
who?
Who cares? You are trolling.
Mike Smith
> I don't know what is the objective criteria to define greatness. So
> this is not a GOAT (Greatest of All time) list, this is more like a
> BOAT (Best of all time list). My criterion is simple - who made the
> most MINUTES of artistically successful and still enjoyable music.
> This is highly subjective, but I have heard all the so-called best
> rock bands ever and this is my judgement.
My *god*, but you're an idiot. First you eschew defining "greatness" as
not being "objective" enough. Then you switch to "best", with the
absolutely ridiculous criterion of "most MINUTES" of "artistically
successful and enjoyable" music, as though there were anything objective
about *that* at all. Then you turn around and admit that "this is
highly subjective".
What the hell is *wrong* with you? You do just *love* to hear the sound
of your own voice, don't you? Go read your insanely OCDish lists to
your mother; she's the only one who would care (if even she does).
--
Mike Smith
Raja, The Great
Stop blabbering. I made it clear, it is a subjective best of list. A
greatest list could be subjective or objective depending on what you
choose. But I am not interested in a greatest list.
who?
You are interested in any kind of list. It's why you are
trolling.
dirk diggler
billy
currently people are investigating the address, social security number
and citizenship
billy
>
> - Show quoted text -
you make nothing clear, you change your opinions more than your
underwear
Jim Beam
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
AC/DC might be in 11th position. I never got the Dead. I have heard
few of their studio albums. Also Dead were a flop outside the US. I am
considering success both in US and UK
richforman
Have you noticed that you basically keep saying the same thing over
and over again all the time?
richforman
dirk diggler
> Have you noticed that you basically keep saying the same thing over
> and over again all the time?
Unfortunately, there are several who haven't noticed that and keep trying to
have an intellegent discussion with him. Little do they realize that Raja
is just a vag lubing troll. He's been at this for about 3 years. Every so
often he says he's leaving these NGs forever because *we're* assholes, only
to be back with his some BS a few weeks/months later. DO NOT ENGAGE Raja
unless of course it's in reference to his vag lubing ways.
stuth...@comcast.net
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Yes
Gee, I can't imagine how I guessed you would say that.
Patrick Kehoe
Commercially successful??? Ya, like Led Zeppelin ever sold as many
records/cd's as the Beatles... ridiculous...
P
King Size Johnson
> I don't know what is the objective criteria to define greatness.
Then stop defining it for others.
King Size Johnson
> Have you noticed that you basically keep saying the same thing over
> and over again all the time?
>
> richforman
IAWTP
IAWTP
IAWTP
billy
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are the most stupid motherfucker on the internet
King Size Johnson
And that's saying a lot.
Raja, The Great
You misread my post. My thread is about best bands, not greatest bands.
billy
your opinion means shit. and when you die it will be the end of any of
your bands being in any lists. nothing you talk about exists in real
life, only in your head.
TT
What makes you think you exist?
TT
And you're his groupie.
billy
The fact that I am sitting here witnessing you kiss raja's ass
richforman
Is it just me fellas (and gals), or aren't "best" and "greatest," ya
know, like whatcha call there, yer, synonyms.
richforman
Raja, The Great
No, he is just being sane. Not everyone is a sociopath stalker like
you.
Raja, The Great
No. it is not. The best is what you deem was the best in your own. For
greatness you can consider popular, impact, social relevance etc.
Greatness concept can be somewhat objective, best concept is purely
subjective.
For example - based on slam success one can almost objectively tell
that Roger Federer is the greatest followed by Pete Sampras followed
by Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver. But the best tennis player in your
opinion could be based on a purely subjective non statisical criterion
like aesthetic and pure beauty of the game and one could have John
McEnroe, Stefan Edberg, Suzanne Lenglen etc at the top of the list.
JohnB
Well, ok, you have defined what *you* mean by these terms which is ok
for this thread.
However, generally I think you'll find "best" simply means (to quote
Tina) "better than all the rest". Similarly "greatest" means "greater
than all the rest". Neither automatically implies subjectiveness or
objectiveness.
It's still another list with the same three bands at the top. It does
get a bit repetitive and dull. I'm wondering now how you'll phrase the
thread title the next time you post a list of greatest/best/most
masterpieces/most classic/etc. which will inevitably have Zep/Floyd/
Yes up at the top again.
Couldn't you instead look for new music (even if it's new "old"
music)? I recently came across an interesting new band called Wolf
People, hints of Jethro Tull, Traffic, Yes and a number of other late
60s/early 70s bands - but they're here and now.
richforman
> On Jan 12, 4:21 am, richforman <rforma...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 1:53 am, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 11, 4:48 am, King Size Johnson <bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 2:17 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't know what is the objective criteria to define greatness.
>
> > > > Then stop defining it for others.
>
> > > You misread my post. My thread is about best bands, not greatest bands.
>
> > Is it just me fellas (and gals), or aren't "best" and "greatest," ya
> > know, like whatcha call there, yer, synonyms.
>
> No. it is not. The best is what you deem was the best in your own. For
> greatness you can consider popular, impact, social relevance etc.
> Greatness concept can be somewhat objective, best concept is purely
> subjective.
>
Well I could of course tell from the context of your comments that
this is what *you* think. But I say you made this distinction up
whole-cloth in your head. Can you point to anything corroborating
these definitions of yours? I say "best" means "most goodest" and
"greatest" means "most greaterest" - so they end up meaning the same
since "great" is only qualitatively different from "good" to begin
with. Like JohnB said in his post - neither one of them carries
connotations of objectivity or subjectivity. If you think I'm wrong
about this cite some evidence other than your just saying so. Educate
me, please.
richforman
TT
> On Jan 12, 4:21 am, richforman<rforma...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 1:53 am, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 4:48 am, King Size Johnson<bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 7, 2:17 pm, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don't know what is the objective criteria to define greatness.
>>>> Then stop defining it for others.
>>> You misread my post. My thread is about best bands, not greatest bands.
>> Is it just me fellas (and gals), or aren't "best" and "greatest," ya
>> know, like whatcha call there, yer, synonyms.
>
> No. it is not. The best is what you deem was the best in your own. For
> greatness you can consider popular, impact, social relevance etc.
> Greatness concept can be somewhat objective, best concept is purely
> subjective.
>
> For example - based on slam success one can almost objectively tell
> that Roger Federer is the greatest followed by Pete Sampras followed
> by Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver.
Actually based on career success, Rod Laver is the greatest. He can only
be challenged by Bill Tilden if we consider Tilden's unrivalled domination.
billy
Man are you retarded!
Jim Beam
Naw, he is just an ignorant asshole.
Raja, The Great
So what is wrong with that?
>
> Couldn't you instead look for new music (even if it's new "old"
> music)? I recently came across an interesting new band called Wolf
> People, hints of Jethro Tull, Traffic, Yes and a number of other late
> 60s/early 70s bands - but they're here and now.- Hide quoted text -
What makes you think I don't check out new music?
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course there is a big difference between best and greatest. You are
a retard if you think they mean the same. Many rock bands will have a
best of and greatest hits compilations and in many cases they will be
quite different.
Raja, The Great
> 12.1.2011 16:36, Raja, The Great kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 4:21 am, richforman<rforma...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 11, 1:53 am, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 11, 4:48 am, King Size Johnson<bellyfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 7, 2:17 pm, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I don't know what is the objective criteria to define greatness.
> >>>> Then stop defining it for others.
> >>> You misread my post. My thread is about best bands, not greatest bands.
> >> Is it just me fellas (and gals), or aren't "best" and "greatest," ya
> >> know, like whatcha call there, yer, synonyms.
>
> > No. it is not. The best is what you deem was the best in your own. For
> > greatness you can consider popular, impact, social relevance etc.
> > Greatness concept can be somewhat objective, best concept is purely
> > subjective.
>
> > For example - based on slam success one can almost objectively tell
> > that Roger Federer is the greatest followed by Pete Sampras followed
> > by Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver.
>
> Actually based on career success, Rod Laver is the greatest. He can only
> be challenged by Bill Tilden if we consider Tilden's unrivalled domination.
No. I was mentioning slam success alone. Not career success which
includes other tournaments. What is your choice for best and greatest
My choices are probably...
Men's Greatest - Roger Federer or Pancho Gonzales or Bill Tilden or
Rod Laver
Women's Greatest - Steffi Graf or Helen Wills or Suzanne Lenglen or
Margaret Smith
Men's Best - Don Budge or Ivan Lendl or Roger Federer or John McEnroe
or Bjorn Borg
Women's Best - Steffi Graf or Maureen Connolly or Helen Willis
JohnB
up.
>
>
> > Couldn't you instead look for new music (even if it's new "old"
> > music)? I recently came across an interesting new band called Wolf
> > People, hints of Jethro Tull, Traffic, Yes and a number of other late
> > 60s/early 70s bands - but they're here and now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> What makes you think I don't check out new music?
... because you keep referring back to the same old stuff. Also when
some here have posted about new bands, you rarely respond. I started a
new thread re the above paragraph. Have you responded? No. I posted a
link to a bit of great guitar playing a month or so back, even said
you might enjoy (it was Martin Simpson, in case you need a reminder).
Did you reply? No. Another link re free downloads of a band that might
appeal to prog fans (The Enid). Did you reply? No, Once I recall,
after I pushed you, you followed a link and found that you "quite
liked" Mostly Autumn.
I think my comment on your report should be "must try harder".
Raja, The Great
I am not following other threads closely. Too busy to be wasting too
much time here. I have posted about several artists I do not typically
discuss. I bought somesCDs in the pass month. Do you want to discuss
that?
Vangelis - Heaven and Hell
Klaus Schulze - Irrlicht
Miles Davis - Bitches Brew
Roxy Music - For Your Pleasure
Aphrodite's Child - 666
Magma - Live/Hhai
Faust - Faust IV
Most of this are from the 60s and 70s but that it is type of
experimental music I like. I am not really into the so called new
music (most of which is derivative). Learn to live with that.
> I think my comment on your report should be "must try harder".- Hide quoted text -
JohnB
No more than you're interested in discussing my new cds.
>
> Vangelis - Heaven and Hell
> Klaus Schulze - Irrlicht
> Miles Davis - Bitches Brew
> Roxy Music - For Your Pleasure
> Aphrodite's Child - 666
> Magma - Live/Hhai
> Faust - Faust IV
>
> Most of this are from the 60s and 70s but that it is type of
> experimental music I like.
Mine are:
Starless & Bible Black - (first eponymous album)
Stackridge - Mr Mick
Mostly Autumn - Go Well Diamond Heart
Stornoway - Beachcomber's Windowsill
Lau - Lightweights & Gentlemen
Bellowhead - Hedonism
Mumford & Sons - Sigh No More
Wolf People - Steeple
... four of which were 2010 releases. Some may be folk, some may be
rock, some don't fit easily into a single genre.
> I am not really into the so called new
> music (most of which is derivative). Learn to live with that.
It's your loss, not mine, but everything's derivative.
Raja, The Great
So then don't blame me.
>
>
>
> > Vangelis - Heaven and Hell
> > Klaus Schulze - Irrlicht
> > Miles Davis - Bitches Brew
> > Roxy Music - For Your Pleasure
> > Aphrodite's Child - 666
> > Magma - Live/Hhai
> > Faust - Faust IV
>
> > Most of this are from the 60s and 70s but that it is type of
> > experimental music I like.
>
> Mine are:
>
> Starless & Bible Black - (first eponymous album)
> Stackridge - Mr Mick
> Mostly Autumn - Go Well Diamond Heart
> Stornoway - Beachcomber's Windowsill
> Lau - Lightweights & Gentlemen
> Bellowhead - Hedonism
> Mumford & Sons - Sigh No More
> Wolf People - Steeple
>
> ... four of which were 2010 releases. Some may be folk, some may be
> rock, some don't fit easily into a single genre.
Who cares? Since you listen to new stuff most of which are not rock,
do you feel superior to the rest of us? You are behaving like poisoned
rose.
>
> > I am not really into the so called new
> > music (most of which is derivative). Learn to live with that.
>
> It's your loss, not mine, but everything's derivative.
No, the biggest difference is that the bands of the late 60s and 70s
were derivative of genres other than rock n roll, whereas the current
bands are derivative of the 60s and the 70s bands. So there is nothing
really exciting about the new bands. What was new about Pearl Jam (it
was plain ol hard rock - just with a negative bent). The grungle label
was slapped just to fool the 90s teenagers into believing that they
were witnessing some sort of new music never tried before.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I think my comment on your report should be "must try harder".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
JohnB
>
> > > Vangelis - Heaven and Hell
> > > Klaus Schulze - Irrlicht
> > > Miles Davis - Bitches Brew
> > > Roxy Music - For Your Pleasure
> > > Aphrodite's Child - 666
> > > Magma - Live/Hhai
> > > Faust - Faust IV
>
> > > Most of this are from the 60s and 70s but that it is type of
> > > experimental music I like.
>
> > Mine are:
>
> > Starless & Bible Black - (first eponymous album)
> > Stackridge - Mr Mick
> > Mostly Autumn - Go Well Diamond Heart
> > Stornoway - Beachcomber's Windowsill
> > Lau - Lightweights & Gentlemen
> > Bellowhead - Hedonism
> > Mumford & Sons - Sigh No More
> > Wolf People - Steeple
>
> > ... four of which were 2010 releases. Some may be folk, some may be
> > rock, some don't fit easily into a single genre.
>
> Who cares? Since you listen to new stuff most of which are not rock,
> do you feel superior to the rest of us? You are behaving like poisoned
> rose.
>
Do you feel inferior? Not my problem. It's all down to personal taste
so no one can criticise someone else for liking this or not liking
that. I know that when I was younger I knew far less and my tastes
were narrower as a result. As I grew older, I became aware of more and
my thirst for new music has never been satisfied. How old are you? 30-
ish? Maybe when you get to 40, you'll start to understand that. I like
to find other music lovers who know artists and styles that I don't.
That's where the excitement lies. Sure, I still listen to old stuff,
that's part of the fun too. The thing is, I don't need anyone to tell
me over and over that band X is the best when I've already heard band
X and made my own mind up.
>
>
> > > I am not really into the so called new
> > > music (most of which is derivative). Learn to live with that.
>
> > It's your loss, not mine, but everything's derivative.
>
> No, the biggest difference is that the bands of the late 60s and 70s
> were derivative of genres other than rock n roll, whereas the current
> bands are derivative of the 60s and the 70s bands. So there is nothing
> really exciting about the new bands. What was new about Pearl Jam (it
> was plain ol hard rock - just with a negative bent). The grungle label
> was slapped just to fool the 90s teenagers into believing that they
> were witnessing some sort of new music never tried before.
>
I couldn't care less about Pearl Jam. But to say there's nothing
really exciting about new bands is a sweeping generalisation that
suggests you don't seek enough. I posted about Wolf People because I
think they *are* exciting. I think Bellowhead can be exciting. I think
Midlake are exciting (at least the discovery of them is, even if the
music is rather laid back). You don't have to like the same as I do,
of course, but if you never give it a chance by this sweeping
dismissal of yours, you are the one missing out.
billy
What is "grungle"? Is that your own label of a mix of grunge and
jungle?
billy
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
but you still put penises in your mouth
JohnB
With comments like that, you prove yourself to be a much worse troll
than Raja ever is.
richforman
Maybe I am a retard, Raja. Come on - help me out - point me to a link
that corroborates or supports your idea that there is a distinction
between "best" and "greatest" that has to do with one being more
subjective than the other. Your just saying so again doesn't help
things - I think you made it up. I have a pretty good vocabulary, a
good grasp and knowledge of and interest in English, and have never
heard or thought of these words your way.
> Many rock bands will have a
> best of and greatest hits compilations and in many cases they will be
> quite different
I can't think of any offhand, but even if so, that's different. A
band's greatest HITS can be a different list than someone's subjective
collection of their "best" but that's a completely different sense of
"greatest" than what you've been talking about. It just means that
those songs are their biggest best-selling hits. It doesn't connote
that those songs are "subjectively" "better" than their "best," it
just means they're bigger ("greater") hits.
richforman
TT
No kidding...
And relentless stalker as well.
Char1ie
<rfor...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>I can't think of any offhand, but even if so, that's different. A
>band's greatest HITS can be a different list than someone's subjective
>collection of their "best" but that's a completely different sense of
>"greatest" than what you've been talking about. It just means that
>those songs are their biggest best-selling hits. It doesn't connote
>that those songs are "subjectively" "better" than their "best," it
>just means they're bigger ("greater") hits.
>
>richforman
Raja has never been more wrong. Let's see how he backs out of this
one.
who?
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:12:52 -0800 (PST), richforman
>
How bout them Beatles?
Raja, The Great
You could use a formula for greatest. Say record sales numbers +
ticket sales + average rating by reputed professional critics =
greatness of an artist. By that margin Beatles easily topple Zeppelin.
You cannot however use a formula for a best top 10. Even if you do it
will be extremely subjective and not acceptable by many. Thats why you
are not accepting my list (which is a best of). If I had used some
kind of greatness formula which is a standard, then many would more or
less.
You yourself used a formula for greatest hits of an artist.
Raja, The Great
I dont. But you constantly try to do that with your snide remarks.
>It's all down to personal taste
> so no one can criticise someone else for liking this or not liking
> that. I know that when I was younger I knew far less and my tastes
> were narrower as a result. As I grew older, I became aware of more and
> my thirst for new music has never been satisfied. How old are you? 30-
> ish? Maybe when you get to 40, you'll start to understand that.
Or may be I dont really care for the derivative new music? I am
leaning more towards funk and jazz these days. I have also always
liked electronic and classical music. When I get tired of rock, I will
move towards some other genre. But I don't think anything terribly
exciting has come out in the past 20 years... there have been few new
artists I have liked.
>I like
> to find other music lovers who know artists and styles that I don't.
> That's where the excitement lies. Sure, I still listen to old stuff,
> that's part of the fun too. The thing is, I don't need anyone to tell
> me over and over that band X is the best when I've already heard band
> X and made my own mind up.
I guess it is the same for all of us.
>
>
>
> > > > I am not really into the so called new
> > > > music (most of which is derivative). Learn to live with that.
>
> > > It's your loss, not mine, but everything's derivative.
>
> > No, the biggest difference is that the bands of the late 60s and 70s
> > were derivative of genres other than rock n roll, whereas the current
> > bands are derivative of the 60s and the 70s bands. So there is nothing
> > really exciting about the new bands. What was new about Pearl Jam (it
> > was plain ol hard rock - just with a negative bent). The grungle label
> > was slapped just to fool the 90s teenagers into believing that they
> > were witnessing some sort of new music never tried before.
>
> I couldn't care less about Pearl Jam. But to say there's nothing
> really exciting about new bands is a sweeping generalisation that
> suggests you don't seek enough. I posted about Wolf People because I
> think they *are* exciting. I think Bellowhead can be exciting. I think
> Midlake are exciting (at least the discovery of them is, even if the
> music is rather laid back).
Exciting in what way?
>You don't have to like the same as I do,
> of course, but if you never give it a chance by this sweeping
> dismissal of yours, you are the one missing out.- Hide quoted text -
JohnB
> On Jan 13, 7:42 pm, JohnB <johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 2:18 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 13, 3:42 pm, JohnB <johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > ... four of which were 2010 releases. Some may be folk, some may be
> > > > rock, some don't fit easily into a single genre.
>
> > > Who cares? Since you listen to new stuff most of which are not rock,
> > > do you feel superior to the rest of us? You are behaving like poisoned
> > > rose.
>
> > Do you feel inferior? Not my problem.
>
> I dont. But you constantly try to do that with your snide remarks.
Where am I making "snide remarks"? For any you can identify of mine,
I'm sure we can find as many of yours. If you think you hold the moral
high ground in these forums, I think you may be mistaken.
>
> >It's all down to personal taste
> > so no one can criticise someone else for liking this or not liking
> > that. I know that when I was younger I knew far less and my tastes
> > were narrower as a result. As I grew older, I became aware of more and
> > my thirst for new music has never been satisfied. How old are you? 30-
> > ish? Maybe when you get to 40, you'll start to understand that.
>
> Or may be I dont really care for the derivative new music? I am
> leaning more towards funk and jazz these days. I have also always
> liked electronic and classical music. When I get tired of rock, I will
> move towards some other genre. But I don't think anything terribly
> exciting has come out in the past 20 years... there have been few new
> artists I have liked.
Ok. I still think you're missing out.
>
> >I like
> > to find other music lovers who know artists and styles that I don't.
> > That's where the excitement lies. Sure, I still listen to old stuff,
> > that's part of the fun too. The thing is, I don't need anyone to tell
> > me over and over that band X is the best when I've already heard band
> > X and made my own mind up.
>
> I guess it is the same for all of us.
>
So, do you accept that coming up with more and more posts that try to
"prove" that your favourite three bands are the best there ever was is
just a pointless excercise as the rest of us are hardly strangers to
their music?
>
> > > > > I am not really into the so called new
> > > > > music (most of which is derivative). Learn to live with that.
>
> > > > It's your loss, not mine, but everything's derivative.
>
> > > No, the biggest difference is that the bands of the late 60s and 70s
> > > were derivative of genres other than rock n roll, whereas the current
> > > bands are derivative of the 60s and the 70s bands. So there is nothing
> > > really exciting about the new bands. What was new about Pearl Jam (it
> > > was plain ol hard rock - just with a negative bent). The grungle label
> > > was slapped just to fool the 90s teenagers into believing that they
> > > were witnessing some sort of new music never tried before.
>
> > I couldn't care less about Pearl Jam. But to say there's nothing
> > really exciting about new bands is a sweeping generalisation that
> > suggests you don't seek enough. I posted about Wolf People because I
> > think they *are* exciting. I think Bellowhead can be exciting. I think
> > Midlake are exciting (at least the discovery of them is, even if the
> > music is rather laid back).
>
> Exciting in what way?
Exciting in that they are coming up with new ideas in composition or
execution. The boundaries of what is possible in music have still not
been reached. Sometimes the new ways are only subtly different and
maybe not for all ears but there is still a lot to explore.
The thing is - I am a music maker. If I didn't believe there were
still new things to say with music, what would be the point?
Raja, The Great
richforman
>
> You could use a formula for greatest. Say record sales numbers +
> ticket sales + average rating by reputed professional critics =
> greatness of an artist.
You could do whatever you wanted, but you've ignored my requests to
point to any evidence *somewhere else*, someone besides you saying so,
that supports your contention that there is a distinction between
"best" and "greatest" that has something to do with sobjectivity.
> You cannot however use a formula for a best top 10.
Sure you could....just as easily as you could for "greatest." Do you
see that you're just making up your own rules, and they don't count
for anything?
>Even if you do it
> will be extremely subjective and not acceptable by many.
Same with "greatest," at least that is my contention and I have asked
you repeatedly to cite evidence showing that I'm not right - that your
vocabulary and knowledge of these words is better than mine. Just
saying the same thing over and over is not evidence (although it is a
specialty of yours).
> Thats why you
> are not accepting my list (which is a best of).
I accept your list perfectly. It's another stupid pointless
completely subjective Raja-list, I accept that without reservation.
> If I had used some
> kind of greatness formula which is a standard, then many would more or
> less.
You're just spouting gibberisth Rodge-uh.
If you can't provide any evidence that my understanding of the meaning
of the words "best" and "greatest" is incorrect and that yours is
right, why not just admit then that you made it up, and you're
probably wrong? Who knows, if you did that, some people might hate
you less and/or respect you a tiny bit more.
Try dictionary.com, tell me if the definition of either of these words
hinges more on subjectivity than the other.
richforman
billy
>
> - Show quoted text -
none of your posts ever go anywhere. it always ends with people owning
you and revealing your ignorance
billy
raja you hate all American bands/musicians and only like brittish ones