Top 10 pop/rock bands of all times
Raja, The Great
02. The Rolling Stones
03. The Bee Gees
04. ABBA
05. U2
06. Boney M
07. Queen
08. Supertramp
09. The Kinks
10. The Zombies
Discuss!
TT
Feeling suicidal again? You think you're going to get serious discussion
with this list instead of abuse?
Also, top at what? Top on what you like the most?
Raja, The Great
Is this TT?
Superdave
Only a fucking paki wog would leave out the BEACH BOYS !
The should be at least #3 or #4.
JohnB
A list with no point of reference. Is this arranged according to your
own opinion or some other measure?
And does pop/rock mean bands that are a bit of both, or one or the
other? Very little the Bee Gees did really rocked. Their early career
was melodic harmony driven pop, their later career was disco.
Still, including Boney M, Supertramp and The Zombies and leaving out
the Beach Boys, The Hollies and Coldplay (to mention just three) just
doesn't seem right.
Of course, there's Elton John, Bruce Springsteen and David Bowie, all
of whom played with a band but who you won't include because they're
not bands. Is that right?
Raja, The Great
> On Apr 14, 1:08 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 01. The Beatles
> > 02. The Rolling Stones
> > 03. The Bee Gees
> > 04. ABBA
> > 05. U2
> > 06. Boney M
> > 07. Queen
> > 08. Supertramp
> > 09. The Kinks
> > 10. The Zombies
>
> > Discuss!
>
> A list with no point of reference. Is this arranged according to your
> own opinion or some other measure?
>
My own opinion
> And does pop/rock mean bands that are a bit of both, or one or the
> other?
A bit of both
>Very little the Bee Gees did really rocked. Their early career
> was melodic harmony driven pop, their later career was disco.
>
Didn't some of that disco rock. They had guitars/drums in their songs
you know... it wasnt all synth/keyboards.
> Still, including Boney M, Supertramp and The Zombies and leaving out
> the Beach Boys, The Hollies and Coldplay (to mention just three) just
> doesn't seem right.
Beach Boys might be a good inclusion. Never heard much of the hollies.
And Coldplay? Really? Are you serious
>
> Of course, there's Elton John, Bruce Springsteen and David Bowie, all
> of whom played with a band but who you won't include because they're
> not bands. Is that right?
Bruce Springsteen never had a pop sound. Which band did Elton John and
David Bowie play with? How many songs did the other "members" write?
globular
or cuss
Boney M surely only apply to Britain. Supertramp only for fans.
The Zombies because you said them. The Bee Gees because of their 70s
music so that makes their entry null and void. U2 for just being boring.
The Kinks because of this newsgroup.
That only leaves
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
ABBA
and I don't like Queen
globular
Or you could do a statistical analysis of all the top 40s of the past 50
years, data mining, I studied that once.
P-Dub
2. The Partridge Family
3. Josie and the Pussycats
4. The Brady Kids
5. The Dead Kennedys
6. The Punk Fugs
7. The Butthole Surfers
8. The West Texas Rednecks
9. Rock Roll (with his hit 'Twitch Twitch')
10. Joe Frazier and the Knock-Outs.
P-Dub: Best.... list.... ever...
Superdave
No. I am American and I love the Boney M !
But where oh where are the BEACH BOYS !
Raja is fucked in the head Paki wog.
Last time I saw him he was on a jam jar.
JohnB
> On Apr 14, 10:21 am, JohnB <johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 1:08 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 01. The Beatles
> > > 02. The Rolling Stones
> > > 03. The Bee Gees
> > > 04. ABBA
> > > 05. U2
> > > 06. Boney M
> > > 07. Queen
> > > 08. Supertramp
> > > 09. The Kinks
> > > 10. The Zombies
>
> > > Discuss!
>
> > A list with no point of reference. Is this arranged according to your
> > own opinion or some other measure?
>
> My own opinion
>
> > And does pop/rock mean bands that are a bit of both, or one or the
> > other?
>
> A bit of both
>
> >Very little the Bee Gees did really rocked. Their early career
> > was melodic harmony driven pop, their later career was disco.
>
> Didn't some of that disco rock. They had guitars/drums in their songs
> you know... it wasnt all synth/keyboards.
I don't regard disco as rock, no matter what the guitars and drums
did. Some of their early stuff rocked but not much really. I liked a
lot of that stuff, but it wasn't really rock. Actually I liked their
last album too (This Is Where I Came In) which probably rocked as good
as any of their stuff.
>
> > Still, including Boney M, Supertramp and The Zombies and leaving out
> > the Beach Boys, The Hollies and Coldplay (to mention just three) just
> > doesn't seem right.
>
> Beach Boys might be a good inclusion. Never heard much of the hollies.
> And Coldplay? Really? Are you serious
Maybe the Hollies were more a UK band but they had a lot of hits.
Coldplay? Well, they have been quite successful, you know, regardless
of how much you like them. I could have mentioned Oasis. It all
depends on your criteria.
>
>
>
> > Of course, there's Elton John, Bruce Springsteen and David Bowie, all
> > of whom played with a band but who you won't include because they're
> > not bands. Is that right?
>
> Bruce Springsteen never had a pop sound. Which band did Elton John and
> David Bowie play with? How many songs did the other "members" write?
Bruce had plenty of pop stuff - Born In The USA, Hungry Heart, Glory
Days, etc.
And Elton John had his own band (not session musicians) as did Bowie.
Since when did more than one band member have to write? How much of
their own stuff did Boney M write? (I don't know the answer to this).
How many Kinks songs of any note were not written by Ray Davies?
Joe Ramirez
"The Elton John Band" was actually credited as the artist on at least
one vintage EJ release (the "Philadelphia Freedom" single). Two of
those guys are still with him 35+ years later (Davey Johnstone,
guitar, and Nigel Olsson, drums). That combo was as much a real band
as the Heartbreakers, Attractions, or E Street Band.
Raja, The Great
>
I don't know... When someone says Elton John, it refers to Elton not
his band. Elton John is in rock n roll HOF, not his band. Same with
David Bowie.
> - Show quoted text -
uly...@mscomm.com
Elton.
In answer to the first question, the Beatles are #1, obviously.
Whoever is in second place is second place by 10 billion miles.
Joe Ramirez
> Exactly. Nigel, Dee and Davey are not getting into the HOF, only
> Elton.
>
no way reflects the worth of the contributions to the music made by
the band members. Why are Max Weinberg and Clarence Clemmons not in
the Hall of Fame when Stan Lynch and Benmont Tench are? Because Tom
Petty put "Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers" on his album covers, but
Bruce Springsteen did *not* put "Bruce Springsteen and the E Street
Band" on his (referring to the ones they actually played on, of
course). That's the only reason.
Raja, The Great
Why do you keep repeating this? Why do you think Beatles only made
good music consistently? What about Mozart, Beethoven, Miles Davis,
Frank Zappa?
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
Almost every solo artist has a band. It is impossible for a guy to
play guitar, drums, bass and sing when playing live. So everyone has a
band. That doesn't mean it is a real band.
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
So this means it was not a real band ;-) Elvis Presley had a "band"
too. Why not mention them? Is it because in some places you read Bruce
Springsteen and E Street band, but you haven't read about Elvis
Presley and "his band".
JohnB
Mozart and Beethoven don't count because they weren't bands :-)
Actually nor were Miles Davis and Frank Zappa.
Raja, The Great
There is no separate genre called disco. It is a subgenre of rock.
JohnB
Rubbish. It may be a sub-genre of pop but it's got little to do with
rock.
TT
You mean those guys who sing heartbreaking songs about surfing? Cool.
Joe Ramirez
Makes no sense. What distinguishes a band from a "real band"? You are
confusing bands that are *formally credited as the artist* with those
that are not. But both are real.
Joe Ramirez
As I've pointed out, the E Street Band is not in the Hall of Fame
either, so it must not be "real" according to you.
Unfortunately, the key factor here is labeling. The name that goes on
the albums determines who gets historical credit, probably more than
it should. Around 2020 or so, the Foo Fighters will be inducted into
the Hall of Fame -- probably five guys. If Dave Grohl had put "Dave
Grohl" on all their albums instead -- which he could have, since he
founded the group and is the frontman and songwriter -- then he would
be the only person inducted, *even if the contributions from all his
bandmates were exactly the same*.
Raja, The Great
It is well understood than Bon Jovi is a band. And Alice Cooper was a
band, before Alice Cooper went solo with the same name. And same with
Santana before Santana went solo with the same name. Same with The
Wailers before Bob Marley went solo. But Bruce Springsteen is a dicey
matter.
I consider Jimi Hendrix Experience to be a band, since all the albums
says Jimi Hendrix Experience, not Jimi Hendrix and it is well know
that Redding and Mitch Mitchell had great contributions to the sound.
It all comes to your own subjective analysis in my opinion.
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
So Elvis Presley's band is also a band? So every artist is a band.
There are no solo artists?
Joe Ramirez
"Solo artist" is a marketing category. Some solo artists play with
"real" bands, i.e., *continuing* groups of musicians that accompany
the artist on albums and tours. Some solo artists do not play with
true bands, i.e., they are constantly recruiting new backup musicians
for every project on an ad hoc basis. My point is that the name that
goes on the records does not necessarily reflect whether a legitimate
band is involved or not. Ask the E Street Band members if they think
the group's name perhaps deserved to be on the front of some of
Springsteen's classic albums.
Raja, The Great
You think they will give a honest answer? Bruce Springsteen himself
might...
Joe Ramirez
Well, I know what my answer is. It's not as though there's no
precedent for doing this fairly. The "Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers"
and "Elvis Costello and the Attractions" model ("The Jimi Hendrix
Experience" is alike in spirit) is the perfect approach to follow when
there is an unquestioned leader/songwriter/"face" of the artist, yet
the other musicians form a long-term, stable group that provides a
distinctive sound and contributes to arrangements.
Raja, The Great
So how do you distinguish between these two?
Joe Ramirez
Distinguish for what purpose?
-For the purpose of simple description, it's just based on the facts.
Is there or is there not a stable group of musicians? You know it when
you see it.
-For the purpose of recording credits and Hall of Fame eligibility,
see my comment above about what I think is the fair approach to naming
the artist.
-For the purpose of your posting lists here, just forget about the
"band" concept entirely. Who cares whether a rock performer is a "solo
artist" or a "band" when the issue is the quality of the music? You
seem to have a bias in favor of the latter and against the former.
Just consider *all* rock (or pop, or whatever you're focusing on)
performers equally when making your lists. No reason to exclude folks
like Springsteen, EJ, and Bowie.
Court_1
> 01. The Beatles
> 02. The Rolling Stones
> 03. The Bee Gees
> 04. ABBA
> 05. U2
> 06. Boney M
> 07. Queen
> 08. Supertramp
> 09. The Kinks
> 10. The Zombies
>
> Discuss!
Boney M? The Zombies? The Kinks? You have to be kidding me. Where are
the Eagles? Fleetwood Mac? The Who? CCR? And so many others?
Raja, The Great
> and don't want to exclude them from your list wank.
The first three albums were attributed to TJHE. Then Redding left and
Hendrix tried to pass off TJHE as his solo effort before he passed
away. There is no doubt TJHE was a band for the first three albums.
They were considered a power trio, not a backing band. And what sort
of backing band has two members?
>
> No other reason. There is no consistency to your reasoning at all.
Raja, The Great
>
May be the main reason is I do not like them :-)
Raja, The Great
> "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I consider Jimi Hendrix Experience to be a band, since all the albums
> > > > says Jimi Hendrix Experience, not Jimi Hendrix and it is well know
> > > > that Redding and Mitch Mitchell had great contributions to the sound.
>
> > > You consider Jimi Hendrix Experience to be a band because you LIKE THEM
> > > and don't want to exclude them from your list wank.
>
> > The first three albums were attributed to TJHE. Then Redding left and
> > Hendrix tried to pass off TJHE as his solo effort before he passed
> > away.
>
>
> > There is no doubt TJHE was a band for the first three albums.
> > They were considered a power trio, not a backing band. And what sort
> > of backing band has two members?
>
> you're determined to ignore.
>
> You don't want to consider Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers a "band." A
> band with far, far more unity and consistency than Yes. There's just no
> consistency to your twaddle at all. Other examples abound.
>
> It's just more of your nerdy garbage. Your shallow, OCD fussing over
> "categorizing" as opposed to processing music in any sort of intelligent
> way.
>
> In my whole life, I've never seen anyone who obsesses over "solo artist"
> vs. "band" like you do. It has little to do with the actual sound of
> anyone's music. You simply judge music based on what's printed on the CD
> spine. Or in your johnny-come-lately case, what appears in the mp3 tags.
>
> Find some fresh music to explore, rather than just autistically
> restacking the same tiny set of old blocks.
I never did a solo artist vs a band thing. The best music is the best
music whether it is from a solo artist or a band. I just do not like
many of the rock solo artists. But I am fond of classical, electronic
and jazz solo artists (more so than the classical, electronic and jazz
bands).
Joe Ramirez
Someone who rejected "solo artists" would find little great jazz to
listen to, since most of it (especially in the bebop era and
afterward) was issued in the name of an individual performer, or of a
performer + a numerically designated supporting cast, not a "band" in
the rock sense. However, even here it was common for the leader to
assemble a strong group of collaborating (not mere "backup") musicians
and use them for several albums over a period of years, i.e., the
Elton John approach. The Miles Davis quintets are obvious examples.
Dave Brubeck did this especially well, and he at least honored the
whole team with the "Dave Brubeck Quartet" appellation.
I'm not sure how the "solo artist" concept applies in the classical
music setting. The piece of music itself determines how it will be
played. Orchestral music is performed by symphony orchestras; chamber
music is performed by traditionally defined chamber music ensembles;
piano music is performed by pianists; etc. And the music these
performers play is typically composed by someone else. Sure, you may
be a big fan of a particular pianist, violinist, conductor, or
soprano, but you still have to seek out their performances in the
standard contexts. There isn't really room for a "solo artist vs.
band" debate. You can't have a "solo artist" string quartet or
orchestra. You can buy a solo recital of a musician you like, but that
person's performing career will still occur largely within the
universe of predefined, collaborative classical music relationships.
Jim Beam
> 01. The Beatles
> 02. The Rolling Stones
> 03. The Bee Gees
> 04. ABBA
> 05. U2
> 06. Boney M
> 07. Queen
> 08. Supertramp
> 09. The Kinks
> 10. The Zombies
>
> Discuss!
Deja Vu all over again, go and get a job.
Didn't you post a list of this nature around a year ago?
You remind me of the drunk who keeps on repeating the same
thing over and over again, after the many countless time of hearing it
you got to tell them SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
Jim Beam
> On Apr 14, 10:21 am, JohnB <johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 01. The Beatles
> > > 02. The Rolling Stones
> > > 03. The Bee Gees
> > > 04. ABBA
> > > 05. U2
> > > 06. Boney M
> > > 07. Queen
> > > 08. Supertramp
> > > 09. The Kinks
> > > 10. The Zombies
>
> > > Discuss!
>
> > own opinion or some other measure?
>
> My own opinion
>
> > And does pop/rock mean bands that are a bit of both, or one or the
> > other?
>
> A bit of both
>
> >Very little the Bee Gees did really rocked. Their early career
> > was melodic harmony driven pop, their later career was disco.
>
> Didn't some of that disco rock. They had guitars/drums in their songs
> you know... it wasnt all synth/keyboards.
>
> > the Beach Boys, The Hollies and Coldplay (to mention just three) just
> > doesn't seem right.
>
> Beach Boys might be a good inclusion. Never heard much of the hollies.
> And Coldplay? Really? Are you serious
>
>
>
> > of whom played with a band but who you won't include because they're
> > not bands. Is that right?
>
> Bruce Springsteen never had a pop sound. Which band did Elton John and
>
> - Show quoted text -
Listen to "Dancing in the Dark" and tell me that Springsteen
Jim Beam
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob Dylan had The Band backing him, so they ain't a real band?
Jim Beam
He is like Rainman, same thing over and over.
Raja, The Great
The Band made albums of their own. So they are a band. But Bob Dylan
is a solo artist.
Jim Beam
>
> - Show quoted text -
No shit, so The E-Street Band ain't a real band because they
didn't make albums?
Raja, The Great
> lists that are "filtered" to include only bands. Or even further
> filtered to include only ROCK bands.
>
Because I dont care about the rock solo acts. I think I have made it
clear.
> And you wouldn't post a list of "Raja's favorite bands." You would just
> post a list of "Raja's favorite artists," where they would happen to be
> all "bands."
See above.
>
> But instead, you stack the deck from the start.
>
> One important reason why you filter is because your knowledge of
> "non-bands" is awful, and you know you won't be able to stay afloat if
> the discussion goes into that vast area.
I have heard enough of the premier ones - Bowie, Dylan, Springsteen
and N.Young and I am not really impressed with any of them. I prefer
Syd Barrett's solo albums over any of those four.
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Band are a significant band of their own (without Bob Dylan being
in the lineup). Big difference.
Raja, The Great
> "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > I never did a solo artist vs a band thing. The best music is the best
> > > > music whether it is from a solo artist or a band. I just do not like
> > > > many of the rock solo artists.
>
> > > If you really had this nonchalant attitude, you wouldn't constantly post
> > > lists that are "filtered" to include only bands. Or even further
> > > filtered to include only ROCK bands.
>
> > Because I dont care about the rock solo acts. I think I have made it
> > clear.
>
> > > And you wouldn't post a list of "Raja's favorite bands." You would just
> > > post a list of "Raja's favorite artists," where they would happen to be
> > > all "bands."
>
> > See above.
>
> like solo artists -- you make it a RULE to avoid them.
Yes I avoid them in my posts. There is no point in talking about
artists you don't like.
>
> > > But instead, you stack the deck from the start.
>
> > > One important reason why you filter is because your knowledge of
> > > "non-bands" is awful, and you know you won't be able to stay afloat if
> > > the discussion goes into that vast area.
>
> > I have heard enough of the premier ones - Bowie, Dylan, Springsteen
> > and N.Young and I am not really impressed with any of them.
>
> Wow. So you defend your knowledge of the entire field of "non-bands" by
> boasting that you've heard "enough" of four huge names whom EVERYONE
> knows.
I am not defending anything. I have heard many solo artists in rock n
roll. Not overly impressed with anyone. In fact the most impressive
one is Elvis Presley. He never made a consistently great album, but he
made tons of great singles.
>
> You really don't even realize how shallow you come off, do you?
>
> How would you feel if some twit posted about nothing but solo artists
> and, when criticized about this, protested that he has heard "enough" of
> the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones and U2 to realize that he
> doesn't like bands?
I can understand if he heard Beatles (hardly a rock band), Rolling
Stones (a great singles band, but albums are just okay) and U2 (pretty
pathetic outside a few hit singles). But I wouldn't understand someone
who has heard enough of Led Zeppelin and does not like them one bit
and still calls himself a rock fan.
number_six
> snip <
> Someone who rejected "solo artists" would find little great jazz to
> listen to, since most of it (especially in the bebop era and
> afterward) was issued in the name of an individual performer, or of a
> performer + a numerically designated supporting cast, not a "band" in
> the rock sense. However, even here it was common for the leader to
> assemble a strong group of collaborating (not mere "backup") musicians
> and use them for several albums over a period of years, i.e., the
> Elton John approach. The Miles Davis quintets are obvious examples.
> Dave Brubeck did this especially well, and he at least honored the
> whole team with the "Dave Brubeck Quartet" appellation.
>
Yes, and jazz aficionados are normally *very* interested in knowing
the names of the musicians who formed the combo (insert "band" here)
for a given session. Recordings could be issued under the leader's
name, but the others are not anonymous, as self-respecting jazz labels
would not issue a recording without full credits in the liner notes
for piano, sax, drums, bass, woodwinds, horns, congas, you name it.
Session dates were also considered a must, so jazz fans could not only
discuss topics like "when did Mingus and some other cat team up" but
also have at hand the answer to questions like "when did Eric Dolphy
play at the Five Spot."
Superdave
consider the source. the goliwog on the jam jar.
RichL
news:5f470d67-bf16-442f...@hg8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 4:30 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 10:21 am, JohnB <johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Still, including Boney M, Supertramp and The Zombies and leaving out
>> > the Beach Boys, The Hollies and Coldplay (to mention just three) just
>> > doesn't seem right.
>>
>> Beach Boys might be a good inclusion. Never heard much of the hollies.
>> And Coldplay? Really? Are you serious
>
> Maybe the Hollies were more a UK band but they had a lot of hits.
No, they were extremely popular in the US back then. Let's just say Raja
isn't very well plugged in.
Superdave
his dick is too short to plug into anything.
JohnB
> "JohnB" <johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message
Looking at my Guinness Book of Hit Singles (1995), it seems that,
behind the Beatles, the next most successful bands in the UK were
Status Quo and the Shadows (based on number of weeks in the charts).
I'd bet they wouldn't feature in any USA compiled list!
Curiously, there are no tennis players in the list...
Mack A. Damia
Didn't The Shadows back Cliff Richards on most of his songs? He had a
number of top 40 songs in the U.S.
JohnB
Only the early hits like The Young Ones, but the Shadows had loads of
hits in their own right, maybe 30 or so with 5 #1s, their hits being
mostly instrumentals.
richforman
> 01. The Beatles
> 02. The Rolling Stones
> 03. The Bee Gees
> 04. ABBA
> 05. U2
> 06. Boney M
> 07. Queen
> 08. Supertramp
> 09. The Kinks
> 10. The Zombies
>
> Discuss!
What's to discuss? This is a list of *your* favorites. No one can
deny that they are your favorites, and the fact that they are doesn't
mean they are the best or the greatest or the all-time top 10 in any
subjective sense. My own list of top 10 favorite bands/artists is
different from yours, but I don't pretend it means anything or is of
interest to anybody else or a springboard for discussion. I certainly
don't have any drive to prove to anyone that my favorites are "the
best." I can talk about some of the music and what I like or admire
about it, on some occassions I might if I have the sense that anybody
would be interested in engaging in such a discussion with me (and I
with them).
Enjoy the music and don't come here to talk about it.
richforman
Jim Beam
Well said, could not have did any better.
marc_CH
> Discuss!
I strap one on, use you as a sodomy toy, then throw you away.
--
marc
marc_CH
> Why do you keep repeating this? Why do you think Beatles only made
> good music consistently? What about Mozart, Beethoven, Miles Davis,
> Frank Zappa?
You /really/ think everything Frank Zappa did was 'good'?
--
marc
Fred Brown
6-1, 4-6, 6-3, 7-5 in a grueling
3 out of 5 set match. So, where
in the hell is Three Dog Night??
JJ (UK)
>news:08c80081-229a-477f...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>Bruce Springsteen never had a pop sound.
Dancing In The Dark? Born In The USA?
Neither even a bit poppy? Less poppy than U2? Really?
JJ (UK)
Jim Beam
He's to dumb to get it.
Unless it has to do with Yes.
globular
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:34:16 +1000, globular<takecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2011 10:08 PM, Raja, The Great wrote:
>>> 01. The Beatles
>>> 02. The Rolling Stones
>>> 03. The Bee Gees
>>> 04. ABBA
>>> 05. U2
>>> 06. Boney M
>>> 07. Queen
>>> 08. Supertramp
>>> 09. The Kinks
>>> 10. The Zombies
>>>
>>> Discuss!
>>
>>
>> Boney M surely only apply to Britain. Supertramp only for fans.
>> The Zombies because you said them. The Bee Gees because of their 70s
>> music so that makes their entry null and void. U2 for just being boring.
>> The Kinks because of this newsgroup.
>> That only leaves
>> The Beatles
>> The Rolling Stones
>> ABBA
>> and I don't like Queen
>
>
> No. I am American and I love the Boney M !
I just remember the odd single, in the 70s?
And I read a certain British 80s dance group was influenced by them.
And I thought I read that they had lots of hits there.
>
> But where oh where are the BEACH BOYS !
I don't know how to be ultimately logical about this.
My only suggestion is what can't apply, not what should.
My biggest complaint honestly is with U2. I always thought the best 80s
to the 90s band might be REM, but I don't think anybody agrees with me.
At least for staying power in their career if nothing else. They've
done Brian Wilson influenced material by the way.
I just have trouble caring about much after the mid 90s too,
which seems to apply to the list on a closer look.
>
> Raja is fucked in the head Paki wog.
The original version of Get Back was about Pakis.
>
> Last time I saw him he was on a jam jar.
And maybe I should stop posting to newsgroups.
History shows that the coolest band of the (late) 70s was Magazine.
Dissentio-ETrou_
<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>01. The Beatles
>02. The Rolling Stones
>03. The Bee Gees
>04. ABBA
>05. U2
>06. Boney M
>07. Queen
>08. Supertramp
>09. The Kinks
>10. The Zombies
>
>Discuss!
1. Henry Cow
2. Suicidal Tendencies
3. Art Zoyd
4. Keiji Haino/Merzbow
5. Din A Testbild
6. Roland Kayn
7. Oskar Sala
8. Faust
9. M.E.V. (Musica Elettronica Viva)
10 Alfredo Tisocco
that's my discussion...inotherwords pop music is irrelevant!