Is This The Best Band Of All Time?

[Animavore]

The Rolling Stones have some great songs and they're certainly better than the shiity Beatles but, they lost any hope of being the best band of all time back in the 70's when they refused to either split up or die.

That and the fact I can think of heaps of bands I'd rather listen too.

[Feck]

NO .

[Chinaski]

The Rolling Stones are quite possibly one of the most overrated bands ever. And no way are they better than the Beatles. At least Lennon and McCartney knew how to write songs.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Good band - Yes
Best band of all time - No

Their albums - even their best ones - contain far too much filler. And I know, cos I've got all of them.

And their worst ones - Their Satanic Majesties anyone?

[Trolldor]

I agree.

They're a bit like Metallica, to be honest. They've got some schaweeet musics, but they've also got a hell of a lot of trash.


Opeth is the best band ever.

[tattuchu]

Although I never cared much for them (was always a Beatles boy), I have to admit they were smoking hot in the late 60s and throughout the 70s. Many of their popular songs I actively dislike, and will change the station if they come on the radio. But even as a non-fan like myself, I still find myself really digging some of their stuff, "Hand of Fate" for instance. I have Tattoo You, which I felt had its moments. I think I'm probably the only person who liked their "Emotion Rescue" song. And I very nearly bought Keith Richards' solo album when it came out, the one with "You Don't Move Me Anymore," on it. So I appreciate them. But I also think they should have gracefully retired twenty-five or thirty years ago.

Also, A-Ha is the greatest band in the world. Obviously.

[JasonK]

The Stones have a few good songs.
However, if I saved my next four bowel movements in mason jars, I'd have produced a better band than The Beatles. Talk about the most highly overrated band of all time. (Sorry, Tatt, I love you!) Nothing salvageable from their entire discography, in my opinion.

And the best band of all time is clearly Fugazi.
Or maybe Mayhem...

[Chinaski]

The Stones have a few good songs.
However, if I saved my next four bowel movements in mason jars, I'd have produced a better band than The Beatles. Talk about the most highly overrated band of all time. (Sorry, Tatt, I love you!) Nothing salvageable from their entire discography, in my opinion.

And the best band of all time is clearly Fugazi.
Or maybe Mayhem...

I honestly don't know how you can say that, but whatever...

The best band of all time is clearly Tenacious D, they've said it themselves. Or it might be Manowar.

[JasonK]

I honestly don't know how you can say that, but whatever...

To each his own, eh?
I can say it 'cause I think they're a bunch of talentless hacks who wrote lyrics for simpletons (I wanna hold your hand...? I wanna hold a fucking gun to your temple...) with very simple and basic music behind them. Totally unimpressed. They give me a migraine.

[Chinaski]

I honestly don't know how you can say that, but whatever...

To each his own, eh?
I can say it 'cause I think they're a bunch of talentless hacks who wrote lyrics for simpletons (I wanna hold your hand...? I wanna hold a fucking gun to your temple...) with very simple and basic music behind them. Totally unimpressed. They give me a migraine.

There's a huge difference between the lyrical quality of their early more poppish stuff and what they produced after Lennon met Dylan and took his criticism to heart (basically Dylan told him "You don't have anything to sing about"). Stuff like The Fool On The Hill, I Am The Walrus, etc... There's a lot of really good stuff.

[tattuchu]

I honestly don't know how you can say that, but whatever...

To each his own, eh?
I can say it 'cause I think they're a bunch of talentless hacks who wrote lyrics for simpletons (I wanna hold your hand...? I wanna hold a fucking gun to your temple...) with very simple and basic music behind them. Totally unimpressed. They give me a migraine.

There's a huge difference between the lyrical quality of their early more poppish stuff and what they produced after Lennon met Dylan and took his criticism to heart (basically Dylan told him "You don't have anything to sing about"). Stuff like The Fool On The Hill, I Am The Walrus, etc... There's a lot of really good stuff.

I can understand The Beatles not being to someone's taste, but I can't understand saying they were talentless and their songs were shit. Also, every one of their albums was different from the last, and their later stuff was light years away from the early stuff. That being said, I find the early solo records more satisfying.

Frigid, I didn't know about this Lennon/Dylon meeting. Can you elaborate?

[JasonK]

I can understand The Beatles not being to someone's taste, but I can't understand saying they were talentless and their songs were shit. Also, every one of their albums was different from the last, and their later stuff was light years away from the early stuff. That being said, I find the early solo records more satisfying.

Probably similar to the way some people only hear noise when they hear metal. I don't get it, as I can pick out crazy intricacies, but lots of people can't. I've been forced to listen to probably the better part of their discography, and for whatever reason found absolutely nothing to like about a single bit of it.
Nothing stood out, to me. Usually, awesome instrumentation or amazing vocal work just jumps out at me. Not the case with the Beatles. But, as I said, to each his own.

[Chinaski]

I honestly don't know how you can say that, but whatever...

To each his own, eh?
I can say it 'cause I think they're a bunch of talentless hacks who wrote lyrics for simpletons (I wanna hold your hand...? I wanna hold a fucking gun to your temple...) with very simple and basic music behind them. Totally unimpressed. They give me a migraine.

There's a huge difference between the lyrical quality of their early more poppish stuff and what they produced after Lennon met Dylan and took his criticism to heart (basically Dylan told him "You don't have anything to sing about"). Stuff like The Fool On The Hill, I Am The Walrus, etc... There's a lot of really good stuff.

I can understand The Beatles not being to someone's taste, but I can't understand saying they were talentless and their songs were shit. Also, every one of their albums was different from the last, and their later stuff was light years away from the early stuff. That being said, I find the early solo records more satisfying.

Frigid, I didn't know about this Lennon/Dylon meeting. Can you elaborate?

I can't remember where I read it, probably in someone's biography. Basically the Beatles met with Dylan (can't remember where) sometime during 1964, which resulted in a) Lennon becoming much more serious lyricist, and Dylan deciding he'd like to be a rockstar too and recording Highway 61 Revisited which opens with Like A Rolling Stone.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I honestly don't know how you can say that, but whatever...

To each his own, eh?
I can say it 'cause I think they're a bunch of talentless hacks who wrote lyrics for simpletons (I wanna hold your hand...? I wanna hold a fucking gun to your temple...) with very simple and basic music behind them. Totally unimpressed. They give me a migraine.

There's a huge difference between the lyrical quality of their early more poppish stuff and what they produced after Lennon met Dylan and took his criticism to heart (basically Dylan told him "You don't have anything to sing about"). Stuff like The Fool On The Hill, I Am The Walrus, etc... There's a lot of really good stuff.

I can understand The Beatles not being to someone's taste, but I can't understand saying they were talentless and their songs were shit. Also, every one of their albums was different from the last, and their later stuff was light years away from the early stuff. That being said, I find the early solo records more satisfying.

Frigid, I didn't know about this Lennon/Dylon meeting. Can you elaborate?

I can't remember where I read it, probably in someone's biography. Basically the Beatles met with Dylan (can't remember where) sometime during 1964, which resulted in a) Lennon becoming much more serious lyricist, and Dylan deciding he'd like to be a rockstar too and recording Highway 61 Revisited which opens with Like A Rolling Stone.

They got stoned together in the back of Lennon's limo IIRC. Lennon then wrote Norwegian Wood which ripped off Dylan's style so much (in Dylan's onion) that Dylan countered by ripping off the melody for 4th Time Around.

[Chinaski]

I can understand The Beatles not being to someone's taste, but I can't understand saying they were talentless and their songs were shit. Also, every one of their albums was different from the last, and their later stuff was light years away from the early stuff. That being said, I find the early solo records more satisfying.

Probably similar to the way some people only hear noise when they hear metal. I don't get it, as I can pick out crazy intricacies, but lots of people can't. I've been forced to listen to probably the better part of their discography, and for whatever reason found absolutely nothing to like about a single bit of it.
Nothing stood out, to me. Usually, awesome instrumentation or amazing vocal work just jumps out at me. Not the case with the Beatles. But, as I said, to each his own.

No one's praising the Beatles for their instrumental complexity (although some of the weird oriental shit is really cool), they're just damn good songwriters. It's a different kind of good. I constantly get a bum rap from my metal colleagues for liking Nickelback.