The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board

Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: AugustWest on February 01, 2006, 06:32:37 am

Title: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: AugustWest on February 01, 2006, 06:32:37 am
The Smiths are my second favourite band of all time.

Who is Number One?
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: jough on February 01, 2006, 03:08:44 pm
Clearly, the Velvet Underground is the greatest band of all time.

I also say this unironically.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: pmcd9 on February 01, 2006, 06:59:26 pm
Who is Number One?

I doubt it.

~Paul
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: jough on February 01, 2006, 07:45:10 pm
The Who is the seventh greatest band of all time, right behind the Rolling Stones but ahead of the Doors.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: Golfhaus on February 01, 2006, 07:52:05 pm
How extensive is your list? After #1 and #2, mine depends a lot on mood and personal taste at the time.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: jough on February 01, 2006, 08:07:36 pm
I can name the greatest bands of all time in order up to #47.

Someday I hope to have a personal Top 100.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: Golfhaus on February 01, 2006, 08:21:03 pm
I'm working on redoing my website (because the blog thing didn't work out real well) with a "Hot Hundred" feature, initially a list of the 100 songs I and my girlfriend could listen to over and over, forever and ever (amen). Possibly branching out to other things as well.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: AugustWest on February 01, 2006, 08:25:59 pm
I can name the greatest bands of all time in order up to #47.

Someday I hope to have a personal Top 100.

Start typing Dude.  I want to see all 47.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: Biz Markizzle on February 01, 2006, 08:34:48 pm
Start typing Dude.  I want to see all 47.

Really?
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: Limmo on February 01, 2006, 09:28:27 pm
1.The Beatles
2. Led Zeppelin
3. everyone else {tie}
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: misterqueue on February 01, 2006, 09:30:00 pm
1.The Beatles
2. Led Zeppelin
3. everyone else {tie}

NO.. No No No...

when oh when can we get over this automatic number 1'ing of the Beatles people??  Do we have to wait for the baby boomers to die?  I hope not.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: pmcd9 on February 01, 2006, 09:45:57 pm
when oh when can we get over this automatic number 1'ing of the Beatles people??  Do we have to wait for the baby boomers to die?  I hope not.

Try that sentance like this.  When oh when can we get over this automatic number 1'ing of Mozart people?  Do we have to wait for...

I know a number of teenaged Beatles fans.

~Paul
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: misterqueue on February 01, 2006, 09:47:02 pm
Bah, teens always want to try to seem cool and knowledgable.  They are untrustworthy.

In conclusion, Beethoven forever bitches!

WORD UP I AM OUT!
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: CortJstr on February 01, 2006, 09:50:28 pm
Apparently Amadeus needs to rock you will a sack full of oranges, bitch
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: pmcd9 on February 01, 2006, 10:11:10 pm
Bah, teens always want to try to seem cool and knowledgable.  They are untrustworthy.

True, but the point being that The Beatles continue to win new fans even 35 years after their demise.

~Paul
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: misterqueue on February 01, 2006, 10:15:13 pm
True, but the point being that The Beatles continue to win new fans even 35 years after their demise.

~Paul

As does Mozart and Beethoven over a much longer period of time, but that's not my point.  Look I'm not shitting on the Beatles here.  They're good, they made big changes in the music scene; I respect this.  I just want to know when we can get past the point of their godlike "Always the Best" status and start having actual discussions and debates about other various best of's...

And the reason I blame the boomers for this is that they are the prevailing reality for such a long time at this point, simply by being the largest number.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: AlohaDawg on February 01, 2006, 10:18:23 pm
NO.. No No No...

when oh when can we get over this automatic number 1'ing of the Beatles people??  Do we have to wait for the baby boomers to die?  I hope not.

Limmo, you that old?

This reminds me of this argument with a self-described "Zeppologist" who, faced with the argument that Led Zeppelin may not be the greatest Rock and Roll band of All Time would end his arguments with "I know that is your opinion, but it's WRONG".
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: pmcd9 on February 01, 2006, 10:24:15 pm
In the interest of full disclosure, The Beatles ar at the top of my list.

~Paul
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: Golfhaus on February 01, 2006, 10:50:48 pm
I said before that only #1 and #2 were ever solid for me (Pink Floyd and Queen, respectively), but I think the Beatles firmly hold down #3.

The rest of my top ten, the ranking of which changes over time:

Barenaked Ladies, Dave Matthews Band, Nine Inch Nails, R.E.M., U2, Radiohead, and The Who.

I believe Zeppelin would make the top 15 if I thought it out.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: theinevitable on February 02, 2006, 12:06:32 am
I find (back me up on this, please, someone) that there are certain bands which I am unable to rank. Essentially, I suppose these are my favorite bands. The two bands that I loved more than anything before I really listened to music frequently. These bands are The Beatles and Nirvana (plus, possibly The Doors). I cannot imagine ranking anything higher than them. At the same time, when someone asks what my favorite band is, I never answer with either of these bands. Lately: My Bloody Valentine, Fugazi, Pixies, or The Velvet Underground.

I compare it to food. I have eaten tortillas my entire life. My mom makes tortillas, and I have always eaten them.
If someone asks me what my favorite food is, I normally say Pad Thai. I did not eat pad thai as a child. i eat it with my fun, interesting friends. not my family.
but then, I eat a tortilla. and can't imagine how anything else could ever be my favorite food. it seems to be so incredibly wonderful that nothing could ever surpass it.
the next week, I say my favorite food is Pad Thai.

I guess its an issue of the emotional vs intellectual response. As someone who collects records, reads music criticism, listens to a wide variety of stuff, etc, I appreciate certain bands. They all have their moments where they really move me. But there's also that element of thinking that My Bloody valentine, or Fugazi, or whoever, is a really cool band to like. People will ask who they are, and I get to explain them, maybe make a mix cd, whatever.
My appreciation for The Beatles has its intellectual element, too. But more of it has to do with a year of my life when I realized that music was what I loved, and I listened to Beatles albums over and over. I love The Beatles. They are great.

I have a friend who has not only a top 100 artists, but also a top 100 albums, as well as various lists for specific genres.
this makes me understand what kind of person grows up to be a music critic.

would it be rediculous to make a thread where people list their favorite bands? we could discuss these bands. mutual interests!
but it has probably been done before.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: AlohaDawg on February 02, 2006, 12:13:11 am
What an idea. Maybe we could even have a forum where music gets discussed!

Mods, may I suggest a split of this discussion to the appropriate forum?
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: V-Adore on February 02, 2006, 12:16:25 am
Workin' on it, hoss.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: wombat on February 02, 2006, 12:26:03 am
I would be happy to never hear another Beatles song ever again.  There is a great sushi place we go to, where the owner plays nothing but his same Beatles mix tape over and over.  It drives me crazy.  I've heard every Beatles song so many times, why would I ever need to hear them again?

(Ducks hail of rotten tomatoes)
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: misterqueue on February 02, 2006, 12:33:56 am
I would be happy to never hear another Beatles song ever again.  There is a great sushi place we go to, where the owner plays nothing but his same Beatles mix tape over and over.  It drives me crazy.  I've heard every Beatles song so many times, why would I ever need to hear them again?

(Ducks hail of rotten tomatoes)

Wombat, this is exactly my feeling, but it's only from EVERYONE IN THE WORLD OVERPLAYING THEM.  I am not picking on lemmer or paul of course mind you, just a pet peeve.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: miles on February 02, 2006, 12:37:02 am
Wombat, you're getting a tiny can every possible chance I can give one to you.

However, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" is one of the greatest songs of all time.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: miles on February 02, 2006, 12:38:06 am
In conclusion, Beethoven forever bitches!

Never argue this point with an Austrian.  And never argue that Mozart is better with an East Berliner girl who kicks hard.
Title: Re: 27 Jan 2006 - The Man With The Blood On His Hands
Post by: misterqueue on February 02, 2006, 12:40:05 am
Never argue this point with an Austrian.  And never argue that Mozart is better with an East Berliner girl who kicks hard.

Berliners kick ASS.  Other than Kennedy's donut speech and um... the wall.  Ergo, I fuck*ng win.  Yet again.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: miles on February 02, 2006, 12:40:53 am
I meant to mean, never argue that Beethoven is better with an Austrian.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: V-Adore on February 02, 2006, 12:42:30 am
I think the tortilla vs. pad thai comparison is very apt -- the Beatles I think of as incredible music, but my parents' music, the music of home. On the other hand, I realize that most of my music isn't going to endure long outside of nerd circles. How does one choose?

Let's just go with "R.E.M. helluva owns" and work from there.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: misterqueue on February 02, 2006, 12:42:37 am
I meant to mean, never argue that Beethoven is better with an Austrian.

THat's okay, I covered up the confusing syntax you used to make me look foolish with editing.  Now I look like a Golden God once again.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: theinevitable on February 02, 2006, 01:31:55 am
V-Adore, you are my new best friend.
My girlfriend told me that if I ever said "that tortilla thing" again, she would... I don't remember. She just said that it was a particularly bizarre and ineffective metaphor. Everyone else I have ever said this to has responded similarly. But I thought it made sense, so...

yes. I enjoy the beatles a lot. I can go back to them time and time again. But, any band gets old after over-saturation. I can understand how constant hyping of a band can make them seem horribly overrated.

Anyway, my top 15 or so, in some very vague pretense of reasonable order are:

Nirvana/ The Beatles
Velvet Underground
Fugazi
Pixies
My Bloody Valentine
The Replacements
Led Zeppelin
Sonic Youth
The Feelies
The Doors
The Stooges
Weezer
Built to Spill
Flaming Lips
and The Talk (but I don't know if they count. they're a local band, and I love them because I've met them many times, their label is owned by my girlfriend's old neighbor, I've seen them, etc. Their first cd was recorded the day I got my first guitar.)

Of course, this is probably weighted based on what I've listened to lately.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: misterqueue on February 02, 2006, 01:33:28 am
I guess it's only fair to list mine since I came down so hard on the apparently sacred and ineffible Beatles.  I will try and compile something later.

If it makes you feel better inevitable, your metaphor was fine for me too, but I don't really want to be your boyfriend.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: theinevitable on February 02, 2006, 02:09:59 am
BUT WE WERE SO GOOD TOGETHER!
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: AugustWest on February 02, 2006, 04:18:03 am
I still ain't see no list of 47.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: robot_roll_call on February 02, 2006, 04:43:27 am
I'd say Bowie at least belongs somewhere in the 10-20 zone. I am also suprised that no one has mentioned Dylan yet, you'd think he'd be a top contender.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: miles on February 02, 2006, 05:05:59 am
Oh he is.  Dylan's up there.  I'm just not posting my list because I'm a revovering list addict.  I was busted for the production and distribution of lists a few years back.  But the temptation...it's so...strong....

1. Built to S...

I really can't start again.  It's a problem.  I'm serious when I say this.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: pmcd9 on February 02, 2006, 05:17:24 am
I agree with The Inevitable  tortilla metaphor.  I also agree with Wombats assessment to a certain degree.  I stopped listening to Led Zeppelin for a long, long, long time because I had listened to them so much back in the day that I couldn't imagine squeezing any further enjoyment out of yet another listen of Dazed and Confused.  I didn't really pick them back up until the totally fuck*ng godhead How the West Was Won came out a couple of years ago.  Absense does indeed make the heart grow fonder.  I can now listen to those old songs again and they sound totally fresh.  Just the other day my i-pod chose When the Levee Breaks and I was just listening in awe at the genius of Jimmy Page.  All piling layer upon layer of guitar sounds, each one unique, yet totally in sync with each other.  All of the parts being played with bombast, yet crisp and precise.  And i'm marveling at what a completely natural talent Robert Plant is.  He is truely one of the greatest singers ever.  It's a crying shame his instrument no longer works as it should.  And i'm also being totally blow away by John Bonham.  Does this guy create a groove so fat you could drive a semi through?  (Yes, he does).  And then there's Ol' John Paul Jones quietly (or more precisely very loudly) standing his ground playing his melodic bass lines that counterpoint Jimmy's guitar perfectly and anchor and beats being layed down by Bonham.  So yeah, even the best tasting tortilla can go stale if you eat it too often.  But then again, there are some groups that I just never get tired of and The Beatles are one of those.

Other Tortillas that never go stale for me...

Paul Simon
Paul McCartney
Queen
AC/DC
Neil Young
The Who
Jimi Hendrix
Roy Orbison
Steely Dan
Todd Rundgren

But if you asked who is my favorite band right now i'd probably say Wilco.

~Paul


 
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: theinevitable on February 02, 2006, 05:22:22 am
pmcd9 (I want to say your name is paul for some reason?)-- which Wilco record would you suggest to listen to first? I've heard that they are a band which is good to listen to.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: acoxcae on February 02, 2006, 05:31:09 am
They are indeed a good band to listen to.  I recommend you listen to Being There first, but then move immediately to Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, then a Ghost is Born.  Then go back and do Summerteeth and AM.  After building an appreciation for those things, listen to Kicking Television, and make sure you're not wearing your good socks, because they'll be BLOWN OFF.

Actually, listen in whatever order you want - YHF is my favorite, followed by Summerteeth and then a Ghost is Born.  Kicking Television I'm not going to include, since it's a live compilation, but it is AWESOME.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: pmcd9 on February 02, 2006, 05:44:14 am
pmcd9 (I want to say your name is paul for some reason?)-- which Wilco record would you suggest to listen to first? I've heard that they are a band which is good to listen to.

The first Wilco record I got into was Yankee Hotel Foxtrot which I played almost daily for months.  It's a beautiful record.  When A Ghost is Born was released I was prepared for a disapointment because there was no way it would be as good as YHF right?  Wrong, it was better.  Many disagree with this opinion, but I just love this record.  It reminds me very much of Ram era Paul McCartney if Paul McCartney had a broken heart.  He (Jeff Tweedy) is Paul McCartney with a broken heart.  Simply gorgeous.  More recently I have gotten more into the earlier albums.  Being There is a great album.  So If you like beautiful pop music tinged in sadness then Wilco is the band for you.  I would reccomend A Ghost is Born, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, or Being There very highly.  Their other two albums A.M., and Summerteeth are also very good so you aren't going to go wrong no matter which one you choose.

~Paul
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: Bozack on February 02, 2006, 05:47:21 am
Bach.
Beyond that, it's too hard. There is simply too much damn good music.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (or, Do the Beatles Suck?)
Post by: arkabee on February 02, 2006, 07:28:54 pm
i'm deeply confused by the lack of appreciation for Clutch that this board shows.

Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: V-Adore on February 02, 2006, 09:41:16 pm
Nice ninja edit on the topic, Paul.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: CortJstr on February 02, 2006, 09:53:59 pm
Nice ninja edit on the topic, Paul.

But I thought that was the B Sharps
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Limmo on February 02, 2006, 10:37:32 pm
Limmo, you that old?

This reminds me of this argument with a self-described "Zeppologist" who, faced with the argument that Led Zeppelin may not be the greatest Rock and Roll band of All Time would end his arguments with "I know that is your opinion, but it's WRONG".

No, I was born in 1967 - representin' for Gen X, yo.   

Actually, if I were being honest, I'd have put Zeppelin first.  I know the Beatles are better than Led Zeppelin, but I'll never love them the same way.  There's a passage in Chuck Klosterman's Killing Yourself To Live that sums it up better than I can, but of course I don't have the book handy when I need it. 

Don't be hatin' on your Zeppologist friend just because he was RIGHT.

I didn't get burnt on the Beatles because I didn't listen to them until I was 20 and working in a CD store.  The Beatles CDs were just being released at the time in batches, and I started working there the week Help, Rubber Soul and Revolver came out.  And we were required to play only those three CDs for a full week - the owner threatened us with "big trouble" if he came in and heard anything else playing.  ( I think "big trouble" would have amounted to extreme glaring. )  I had resisted ever listening to the Beatles up to that point, thinking it was either mop-top crap or music for cartoons about flying blue gloves.  So I reluctantly put in Revolver and about an hour later had a new favorite band.

It was the best possible exposure, because from that point on, a "new" Beatles CD came out every three months.  So I had all of June and July to fully absorb Sgt. Pepper's, and then in August it was time for Magical Mystery Tour.  Etc, etc. 

The Beatles just wrote more great songs than anyone else ever.  Someone called them "the greatest sustained artistic miracle of modern times" and I agree.   Though I'm still not crazy about the mop-top stuff. 

Ooh! Someone just posted Zeppelin's first-ever recorded show from 1968 at dimeadozen.org!  Gotta go!
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: AlohaDawg on February 02, 2006, 10:51:10 pm

No, I was born in 1967 - representin' for Gen X, yo.   


That makes us pretty close in age. Old.

Don't be hatin' on your Zeppologist friend just because he was RIGHT.

He was an amusing guy with a good premise, but a pretty poor argument. That's what happens when your 'life is awesome' more than 15 hours a day every day.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Limmo on February 02, 2006, 11:24:33 pm
He was an amusing guy with a good premise, but a pretty poor argument.

I dunno, I never argue my points, I just spew them out 'cuz it's fun.   You could cogently rationalize why The Strokes are the greatest band ever until you're blue in the face, and it's still not going to make the other person think "he's right, a-ha are no longer my favorite band."

In fact, the topic of the White Stripes came up at my band's practice two weeks ago.  When I disinterestedly stated that they were "the most over-rated band in the entire history of Western music," our singer got so pissed you'd think I had fingered his wife.  It's just a band.  Who cares?

So now I like the White Stripes even less: they're over-rated and they made one of my best friends angry and condescending for a few minutes. 

Arguments over music are pointless.  I'd much rather argue over things that everyone at least agrees on, like politics and abortion.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: wombat on February 02, 2006, 11:51:16 pm
When I disinterestedly stated that they were "the most over-rated band in the entire history of Western music,"

This is my favorite sentence, or part thereof, that I have read today.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: pmcd9 on February 03, 2006, 12:21:42 am
The problem today is there are too many opinions.

~Paul

Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: AlohaDawg on February 03, 2006, 12:22:59 am
And not one out there half as good as the worst of mine.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Limmo on February 03, 2006, 12:45:57 am
And not one out there half as good as the worst of mine.

AlohaDawg sums up what's wrong with mankind in less than one full sentence.  If that doesn't merit a tiny can of Dr. Pepper, then I'm Meg White.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: AugustWest on February 03, 2006, 03:10:50 am
Speaking personally, I think all wrong-thinking people are right.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Carlos del Vaca on February 03, 2006, 03:27:26 am
I would tax people who stand in water.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: starlight on February 03, 2006, 06:34:22 am
Hm... I may have made a top 50 albums of 2005 list, but I could never make a top list of all time.  I change my mind every second.

Really, the only bands that have stuck for even the past 6yrs have been:
Carissa's Wierd
Knife in the Water
Sigur Rós

....I don't even like most music before the 80's, so I'm probably not the one to make this type of list.  I think the reason for this is that I had horrible taste before '99 and ignored all of dad's music (ie; classic rock).  I do like Velvet Underground though.  that's the oldest band in my collection I think.

There was one moment in middle school when I just listened to the oldies station, but I never bought any albums during that time; it was just whatever they played.

Yes...

* Hopefully I won't lose cans for this
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: jough on February 03, 2006, 08:09:43 am
I was going to read all of this thread and maybe some others and then reply to stuff but there's just too much and I've got a lot on my plate unless you want to talk about overclocking my onboard video chipset or fixing a broken PC case powerbutton that causes a newly built PC to turn on for a few seconds and then turn off again as if someone were holding in the power button.

Anyway, yeah.  I'm going to bed.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Golfhaus on February 03, 2006, 01:58:43 pm
THAT IS NO EXCUSE.

LIST PLEASE

Don't make us bust out the marquee.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: AlohaDawg on February 03, 2006, 07:58:37 pm
Speaking personally, I think all wrong-thinking people are right.

And you would be right in saying so.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Thee on February 03, 2006, 08:29:48 pm
There has been no good music made in the last 100 years.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Golfhaus on February 03, 2006, 09:03:24 pm
I only listen to music released during the Golden Age: August 11, 1988 to September 14, 1992.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Hobot on February 04, 2006, 12:12:42 am
I only listen to music released during the Golden Age: August 11, 1988 to September 14, 1992.

I only listen to music released during the Gilded Age.

Plus Radiohead.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: pmcd9 on February 04, 2006, 04:42:33 am
I love all music, especially yours.

~Paul
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: slink on February 04, 2006, 02:34:28 pm
I listen to everything good. If it's Russian or klezma it can only be a plus...
I could never make a list, not even of films, food...

Plus, much as I like them, and great as they were, I'd be a little harsh on The Beatles.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: wombat on February 04, 2006, 03:17:05 pm
Slink reminds me of the line that Peter Schickele (the 'discoverer' of PDQ Bach) uses on his radio show:  If it sounds good, it is good.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: pmcd9 on March 24, 2006, 06:45:57 pm
I just heard Nights on Broadway and OMG I can't listen to this song now without hearing the theme song to The Barry Gibb Talk Show (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/03/03bgibb.phtml).

But anyway I noticed something a little off in the lyrics

Quote
Blamin’ it all on the nights on broadway
Singin’ them sweet sounds
To that crazy, crazy town.

Uh guys, Broadway is a street, it's not a town.

~Paul
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: BatzRadio on March 24, 2006, 08:02:54 pm
In fact, the topic of the White Stripes came up at my band's practice two weeks ago.  When I disinterestedly stated that they were "the most over-rated band in the entire history of Western music," our singer got so pissed you'd think I had fingered his wife.  It's just a band.  Who cares?

So now I like the White Stripes even less: they're over-rated and they made one of my best friends angry and condescending for a few minutes.

Well they're over-rated but I wouldn't go THAT far. The Eagles have that spot far and fuck*ng away.

I did like the last White Stripes album though - at least the quieter songs. It wasn't breaking any sort of new ground at all, but I at least thought "White Moon" was a pretty song. But still - they're not the creative geniuses these kiddies think they are.

They're not even the most creative current band in the whole Detroit garage scene. By a million miles that's the Dirtbombs.

Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Nabubrush on March 24, 2006, 09:18:18 pm
Somebody mentioned the Doors - I can't imagine that band being in anyone's top ten list. That just stuns me. I thought Golf's list was interesting, though. And I really like Clutch - but again, couldn't make my top ten list.

Most of the stuff on my list doesn't make the critics or hip kids happy.
Title: Re: Ranking Music (The Beatles Are better than Jesus)
Post by: Drastic Action on April 06, 2006, 07:07:48 am
I'm confused.  Is this an attempt at finding a universal best list, or to express people's own opinions?  Because personally I can definitely appreciate the artistic and cultural importance of bands such as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin, but if I were to make a list of my personal favorites, I don't think any of the bands listed in this entire thread would even make it into my top 50.  They just aren't really my style, and while I can be in the mood for them at times, and may even experience mild obsession about some of them at other times, I just couldn't truthfully call them favorites.  I mean, I saw the Beatles' Sgt Pepper CD for one dollar and I feel like I paid an ok price for it (I had to think about the purchase a bit).

I guess my point is that it's possible for my musical interests to be so orthogonal to the general opinion that I don't think a universal list could exist, and that to argue about the inclusion of anything on someone else's list really doesn't make much sense.

I just tried to make a really short version of just some of my favorite bands and it already has gotten to be over 40 bands long.  That might be a bit ridiculous to post.