View Full Version : MSNBC's Top 10 Greatest Band's ever!
3-LockBox
08-27-2007, 02:01 PM
Another list to agonize over.
Here it goes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595384/
Although, the writer of this article does at least explain his choices with adequate intelligence, I do take exception to his 'order' of things', such as his elitist insistance that acts like The Ramones and The Velvet Underground be ranked so high, even ranking them higher than Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd in importance. Whatever. I can understand how a band like the Ramones would inspire a lot of poorly talented musicians, writers and singers to think they could start a band, but I doubt the musical landscape would look that much different without them. Zep and Floyd can make claim to a longer lasting legacy than The Ramones. Velvet Underground I can see as being influential, since they forshadowed glam rock and punk rock, but The Ramones were Eddy And The Cruisers on speed, that's all.
Yeah...that's the ticket...
:ihih:
MindGoneHaywire
08-27-2007, 03:16 PM
Yeah, they shouldn't be on there. How could anyone like them more than Pink Floyd? That's against the rules, isn't it? Somebody oughtta do something about that.
Personally I object most to the combination of the presence of U2 & the omission of the Who. Or the combination of the presence of the Grateful Dead & the omission of Bob Dylan. Or...
3-LockBox
08-27-2007, 06:54 PM
Yeah, they shouldn't be on there. How could anyone like them more than Pink Floyd? That's against the rules, isn't it? Somebody oughtta do something about that.
Personally I object most to the combination of the presence of U2 & the omission of the Who. Or the combination of the presence of the Grateful Dead & the omission of Bob Dylan. Or...
The writer did explain why he excluded certain acts, because he wanted to focus on bands, not individual performers. You're right though, the Who definately belong on a list like that.
But where's Kansas or Yes?
PeruvianSkies
08-27-2007, 10:44 PM
I would certainly replace U2 with THE WHO....I hate U2.
MindGoneHaywire
08-27-2007, 11:31 PM
>The writer did explain why he excluded certain acts, because he wanted to focus on bands, not individual performers.
Then I would wonder why Bob Marley & The Wailers makes the cut & Bob Dylan, whose most celebrated recordings were with The Band, is not.
Considering my avatar, I hate to point this out, but the appeal of the Ramones, at least over the past decade or so, has transcended that of the bands you mention, in spite of record sales still being pretty lopsided in favor of bands that would never make that list. For years they've had song snippets played at most, if not all, major league sporting events in all 4 major sports, to arenas filled with tens of thousands of people, nearly every day of the year in this country, all the time. Key placements of their songs on movie soundtracks have exposed their music more than radio play ever did for more than 25 years now, which has leveled the playing field in some ways after decades of varying degrees of radio exposure had rendered it quite unbalanced. Their music is exposed in television commercials, and carbon copies of their music, as well. Wny? Because the appeal exists, even if the record sales figures do not correlate.
It's just another stupid list. And, with the omission of the Who, an ill-conceived one any way you slice it.
PeruvianSkies
08-28-2007, 12:04 AM
>The writer did explain why he excluded certain acts, because he wanted to focus on bands, not individual performers.
Then I would wonder why Bob Marley & The Wailers makes the cut & Bob Dylan, whose most celebrated recordings were with The Band, is not.
Considering my avatar, I hate to point this out, but the appeal of the Ramones, at least over the past decade or so, has transcended that of the bands you mention, in spite of record sales still being pretty lopsided in favor of bands that would never make that list. For years they've had song snippets played at most, if not all, major league sporting events in all 4 major sports, to arenas filled with tens of thousands of people, nearly every day of the year in this country, all the time. Key placements of their songs on movie soundtracks have exposed their music more than radio play ever did for more than 25 years now, which has leveled the playing field in some ways after decades of varying degrees of radio exposure had rendered it quite unbalanced. Their music is exposed in television commercials, and carbon copies of their music, as well. Wny? Because the appeal exists, even if the record sales figures do not correlate.
It's just another stupid list. And, with the omission of the Who, an ill-conceived one any way you slice it.
Agreed.
kexodusc
08-28-2007, 03:30 AM
I can understand how a band like the Ramones would inspire a lot of poorly talented musicians, writers and singers to think they could start a band, but I doubt the musical landscape would look that much different without them.
ROFLMAO!
Well when you put it like that....:biggrin5:
GMichael
08-28-2007, 05:15 AM
What? No Monkeys?
Swish
08-28-2007, 02:50 PM
Another list to agonize over.
Here it goes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595384/
Although, the writer of this article does at least explain his choices with adequate intelligence, I do take exception to his 'order' of things', such as his elitist insistance that acts like The Ramones and The Velvet Underground be ranked so high, even ranking them higher than Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd in importance. Whatever. I can understand how a band like the Ramones would inspire a lot of poorly talented musicians, writers and singers to think they could start a band, but I doubt the musical landscape would look that much different without them. Zep and Floyd can make claim to a longer lasting legacy than The Ramones. Velvet Underground I can see as being influential, since they forshadowed glam rock and punk rock, but The Ramones were Eddy And The Cruisers on speed, that's all:ihih:
And I watch NBC for my conservative political coverage.
Swish
Mr MidFi
08-29-2007, 07:00 AM
This was a better-written article than I expected it to be. I, too, would have found room for The Who on that list. But I would also have included U2. Not sure who I would demote; perhaps Sly.
The top 10 songs sidebar was also not bad, if fairly predictable. But OutKast's "Hey Ya" among the Top 10? Of all friggin' time?!?! Sweet jeebus, that's just so very wrong...
nobody
08-29-2007, 07:24 AM
Just wanna stand up for The Ramones. They started the punk thing and for better or for worse, that was one of the biggest movements in recent rock history. So, yeah, influential. And, yeah, the musical landscape would be dramatically different without them.
I'd put them over Velvet Underground as well, a band I do really like and I think was influential (just listen to how many bands over the years have said it directly) but does tend to get overstated (how many of those bands were really influenced by VU's music directly or are they just as much 2nd and 3rd generations being influenced by the whole cult of VU kinda stuff).
U2 is the one I don't see as making so big a difference in things, even though I really do like a couple of their albums a lot.
Kinda feel like they tacked on Marley, who's not even rock, and Sly at the end 'cause they realized they forgot to mention black folks. They also invariably leave out the real pioneers whenever they do stuff like this. (kinda like throwing out Hey Ya on the song list, trying to be both urban hip and modern and failing at both)
I'll play nice and not just slam a couple bands on there that bug the crap out of me...ol' dead Jerry, I'm talking about you.
3-LockBox
08-29-2007, 07:32 AM
The top 10 songs sidebar was also not bad, if fairly predictable. But OutKast's "Hey Ya" among the Top 10? Of all friggin' time?!?! Sweet jeebus, that's just so very wrong...
I'd put The Clash on the band list instead of Sly or The Ramones.
The songs were good, but I'd pick two other songs from Marvin Gaye before I'd pick Grapevine, but its a good song none the less. I wouldn't put Like A Rolling Stone in the Top 10, maybe Top 20 - I understand its an iconic song, but I'd would have liked to see PF's Money in the Top 10. Hard to argue with a list like that, except the glaring omission of Stairway To Heaven or My Generation. Some of those songs would have to get bumped to 11 and 12 cuz My Geberation is every bit as iconic as Satisfaction.
But no, Hey Ya doesn't belong on the list (and I like the song). I'd put Gorillaz's Feel Good on that list, or When Doves Cry by Prince before I'd put anything from Outkast on it.
3-LockBox
08-29-2007, 07:44 AM
U2 is the one I don't see as making so big a difference in things, even though I really do like a couple of their albums a lot.
Kinda feel like they tacked on Marley, who's not even rock, and Sly at the end 'cause they realized they forgot to mention black folks. They also invariably leave out the real pioneers whenever they do stuff like this. (kinda like throwing out Hey Ya on the song list, trying to be both urban hip and modern and failing at both).
I agree, U2 didn't change anything; they weren't even the first 'big' rock band from Ireland. I think Marley belongs, but I'd omit him to include Parliment or James Brown, who was more about a band experience than a solo experience anyway. But, as MGH already pointed out, any list like this is severely hamstrung by the omission of The Who.
PeruvianSkies
08-29-2007, 11:18 AM
And I watch NBC for my conservative political coverage.
Swish
That's funny, I just use MSNBC for all my thoughts. I download the content every morning and align what they say with what I think.
musicman1999
08-29-2007, 05:46 PM
I would certainly replace U2 with THE WHO....I hate U2.
Hate is a strong word but i don't like them at all.I just don't see the big fuss,have not even heard a song i like in 10-15 years.
bill
3-LockBox
08-29-2007, 05:56 PM
Hate is a strong word but i don't like them at all.I just don't see the big fuss,have not even heard a song i like in 10-15 years.
bill
Yeah, hate is a strong word. I like U2, but I wouldn't put them in the top 10, or 20. Bono is the reason people hate U2. Hell, Sting thinks Bono is a pompous ass.
Another list AGONIZE over?
How about one to utterly ignore?
Why do people take these silly lists as dogma? Is there some rock bible or scriptures we must all adhere to, or something? I didn't get that memo. Maybe I need to pay attention to my private messages . . .
Don't like msnbc's taste in music? Find another "news" source that you do agree with. Heck, maybe you can find a news source that covers, you know, news?
Let me know, because I'd like to read what THAT imaginary news source writes.
And yes, U2 sucks too. In fact, every band on that list sucks to someone, ok?
PeruvianSkies
08-29-2007, 08:12 PM
Hate is a strong word but i don't like them at all.I just don't see the big fuss,have not even heard a song i like in 10-15 years.
bill
No, I pretty much hate them. They wrote 1 good song and then decided to make millions of dollars writing songs that sound just like that 1 good one. They are sell outs and pretty much everything Bono says is utter garbage.
nobody
08-30-2007, 03:40 AM
Why agonize over a list?
Well, to argue over silly minutia and discuss opinions on music, kinda the main reason people come here in the first place. I certainly don't take any of these lists seriously, and no one should. But, they are an interesting point to start conversations about how much people hate Bono or whatever.
Personally, I don't hate Bono or U2, but I was pretty much done with them after they released War, which I still think was a fantastic album. They just haven't put out anything in a long, long time that's been interesting to me. They have become the Rolling Stones.
3-LockBox
08-30-2007, 07:11 AM
They just haven't put out anything in a long, long time that's been interesting to me. They have become the Rolling Stones.
Exactly
3-LockBox
08-30-2007, 07:18 AM
Another list AGONIZE over?
How about one to utterly ignore?
Why do people take these silly lists as dogma? Is there some rock bible or scriptures we must all adhere to, or something? I didn't get that memo. Maybe I need to pay attention to my private messages . . .
Don't like msnbc's taste in music? Find another "news" source that you do agree with. Heck, maybe you can find a news source that covers, you know, news?
Let me know, because I'd like to read what THAT imaginary news source writes.
And yes, U2 sucks too. In fact, every band on that list sucks to someone, ok?
Hey Troy - ooooohhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
Because its why we're here and its what we all do so well. Look at this board. Put the word 'sucks' in the heading and those threads explode. Hell, where were you for the last two weeks or so...you were lurking, didn't see anything you liked, saw the word 'sucks', and BAM, here you are.
I ain't taking no list as dogma, I'm just like you, parusing the web, matching wits with the illuminati, killing time better spent pulling dandelions in the front lawn or cleaning gutters. It's all good.
:8:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.