10 greatest rock bands

Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by blindzebra, Jun 20, 2005.

  1. blindzebra

    blindzebra Well-Known Member

    10,410 Messages
    1,938 Likes Received
    1. Beatles

    2. Rolling Stones

    3. Fleetwood Mac

    4. Pink Floyd

    5. Led Zeppelin

    6. Eagles

    7. U2

    8. REM

    9. The Who

    10. Lynyrd Skynyrd
  2. blindzebra

    blindzebra Well-Known Member

    10,410 Messages
    1,938 Likes Received
    My next 10

    1. The Funk Brothers...they were the Motown band behind all the hits.

    2. The Police

    3. Creedence Clearwater Revival

    4. Cheap Trick

    5. Boston

    6. Talking Heads

    7. The Pretenders

    8. Aerosmith

    9. Nirvana

    10. Styx
  3. jcollins28

    jcollins28 Well-Known Member

    1,578 Messages
    70 Likes Received

    What? Led Zeppelin at 5!?!?! Fleetwood Mac at 2! No one is better the Zeppelin is this your personal rankings or did you find them on Vh1 or something? Led Zeppelin is the #1 Rock and Roll Band of All Time. Here is why:


    First of all, John Bonham was the best rock and roll drummer ever to walk the face of this planet. John played drums unlike anyone else ever did, still does, or ever will, and that fact is continually demonstrated in the astounding breadth and depth of his recorded work. He had complete independence in all four limbs, he slammed his drums harder than anyone else, and he did it with speed and total precision, never once dropping the beat. His beats were were innovative and creative. John was never stuck in simple grooves. His fills were also innovative, creative, complex, and technically brilliant. He knew when to keep it relatively simple (i.e. Kashmir), but he was always simply in the stratosphere of drumming. And to top that all off, John created a giant drum sound which is unique. It inspired a host of immitators who could only approach the sound of his snare drum, but just with a simple backbeat. But not one of them can begin to touch his creativity, speed, precision, or technical brilliance. At the time that Led Zep was formed, Jimmy Page could have gotten any drummer in the world to play with him, and he chose John.

    Secondly, Jimmy Page has always been one of the best rock guitarists ever, right from his earliest days as a session player and the beginning of his real public stardom in the Yardbirds. I believe that Jimmy is the most brilliantly prolific of all the rock and roll guitarists. I suspect that Jimmy would agree with me that Jimi Hendrix was the genius because he came from another galaxy in terms of his sound and his use of feedback. But unfortunately, Jimi died and we will never know how much further he would have progressed. When I listen to Jimmy's solos using the violin bow, I get the urge to put him on the same pedestal as Hendrix and wonder which galaxy they both came from. As a songwriter, Jimmy used his superior ability to play lead guitar to create actual song structure. Led Zep's songs use not one or two of Jimmy's incredibly powerful, complicated and unbelievably SEXY riffs in each song, but there are four, five or more riffs in some songs. Jimmy's riffs differ from each other within each song, and also from song to song. His lead guitar playing can be HARD and sexy, he can be sensitive and beautiful, and he can be technically brilliant - all in the very same song.

    Thirdly, John Paul Jones is a bass player who attained a level of brilliance comparable to Paul McCartney. Just like McCartney, John could play beautiful "melodic" bass (i.e. "Ramble On"), he could play as fast as it gets, but he also knew when to keep it simple and just hold down the bottom, although I think he was incapable of simply doing that without utter sophistication. No one at all can touch those two on bass, and John also played consistently brilliant keyboards - piano, organ and synthesizer. The intricate way in which he wove his bass guitar playing into, through, and underneath Jimmy's guitar playing is nothing short of perfection iteslf.

    And last but not at all least, Robert Plant had an incredibly high vocal range, emotionally as well as in terms of octaves. Just like Dylan was for his own music, Robert's voice was perfect for Led Zep's music and there's no other singer who could possibly have fit in. Personally, and also as a professional singer, Robert knocks me out both technically and emotionally. He also understood the concept of using his voice like a musical instrument, creating fascinating sounds without using lyrics. And Robert co-wrote with Jimmy too. A lot of the time you can't understand his lyrics and I've heard that was Robert's intent because just like Mick Jagger, all he cared about at that time was that you connect with the emotion and the energy in the totality of the music. But when you can get the lyrics (like in Stairway to Heaven, their tribute to Janis Joplin), you find a great piece of poetry. And on top of all that, Robert had the best "oooh yeahs" in the business.


    Hardly anybody has ever covered Led Zep songs for very good reasons. Their song structure is based on their vastly superior playing abilities and there's no one who can actually play what they played. I'm talking about songs that are not based on simple chords like all other rock and roll is. Jimmy and Robert based their songs on Jimi's riffs and on his chordal tonalities that to this day stand alone as being unique. I'm also talking about length of songs that maintain a constant and intense high, up to 11 minutes in length without resorting to an overly repetitive chorus. I know from Robert's solo work after Led Zep that he also uses unusual tonalities in his writing, but even without actually knowing this I would have to assume that due to Jimmy Page being an erupting fountain of brilliant guitar work, the majority of the non-vocal music creation came from Jimmy. The Beatles certainly deserve abject worship for John and Paul's creative songwriting ability, no question about that. Certainly Mick and Keith wrote a slew of classic, historic and truly memorable rock songs, but the very nature of their comparatively simple rock and roll structure and basic similarity to each other in terms of using major and minor chord progressions, simple and basic rock and roll rhythms, and verse/chorus/bridge approach defines them as being less innovative when compared to Robert and Jimmy.


    Here they outdistance The Stones because most of the Stones' albums have "filler" material in terms of not hitting the same high that they slammed in all their best songs. However, I'd like to say that I don't think either Mick or Robert are capable of recording anything short of a brilliant vocal. The Beatles actually exceed Led Zep in terms of numbers of great albums that constitute a greater body of brilliant and uniquely innovative work that literally broke new musical ground with every single song they recorded. The Beatles were simply The Beatles, and they were the most creative rock and roll band ever, from being the best singers and songwriters ever right down to their individual charm and charisma. But without denegrating their gorgeous, sensitive and original style of playing, what they recorded is not the heavy type of rock and roll that either the Stones or Led Zep played. George, Paul and John were all brilliant and creative guitarists, but because they did not improvise on stage, they were not really master guitarists. I love and respect Ringo as both a person and as a very creative drummer who mastered the art of drum sounds. He has his own unmistakeable Ringo style for both, but he's not really a master drummer in the sense of being able to play with great speed and dexterity. I'm talking about 9 albums chock full of brilliant and intensely high Led Zep songs - I don't know how many hours of great rock and roll listening that is. There's hardly a single weak track among all that work, and there's simply no question that they consistently broke new ground musically. Their debut album is still the best one of all time (including Cream's), and Coda, their "swan song" is equally perfect.


    Led Zep was there when the concept of "rock and roll star" was still evolving. I will grant that the Stones at least deserve honorable mention as the best rock and roll band ever, but it's mostly because of their impressive touring record and Mick's superstar stage presence with his ability to put on a great show every single time he appears. And he's still doing it at age 60 for goodness sake! My point isn't that Led Zep necessarily had the best stage presence, just that they did have that true rock star sexual aura, and when you add all these important qualities together, they really do deserve being called the number one rock and roll band of all time.

    I could go on about Jimmy Page's abilities as a producer, and there are other aspects to their greatness like the length of time they were together without a change of band members. And the life they actually led as archtypical wild rock and roll bad boys equals the life led by the Rolling Stones in intensity, if not length. In this sense both bands are perfect examples on a conceptual artistic level of what I call FORM = CONTENT. The above four categories do enough to fully qualify Led Zeppelin for my not-so-humble award. There will never be another rock and roll band to approach the stratospheric musical heights that Led Zep reached. The Recording Industry Association of America, who has the correct statistics, lists Led Zeppelin as the third best selling musical act/artist in history. The Beatles are first, with 166.5 million albums sold in the USA alone, Elvis is second with 117.5 million, and Led Zep is third with 106 million. I think it's very significant that those statistics are becoming geometrically times greater than the number of albums that they sold during their performance lifetimes. What has happened and is happening is that the young people of today are discovering them in droves because they are coming of age sexually and they recognize and connect with the most powerful musical example of that sexual power. They are buying their CD's, shirts, posters and other memorabilia. And frankly, I'm thrilled.
  4. blindzebra

    blindzebra Well-Known Member

    10,410 Messages
    1,938 Likes Received
    It's called an opinion, it's subjective.

    I'd rather listen to 4 other bands before I'd play Zeppelin, you wouldn't, does not make either of us right.;)
  5. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    68,150 Messages
    15,526 Likes Received

    With Fleetwood Mack even in the top 5....yes that makes him right and you wrong. :D

    IMO the Beatles, Zep and The Stones have to be top 3.

    To be fair I am bias as I just can not stand Stevie's voice...argghh just one of those voices that annoys me.
  6. Juke99

    Juke99 ...Abbey someone

    22,271 Messages
    3 Likes Received


    Led Zep
    Creedence Clearwater
    Cheap Trick
    The Rascals (I needed one dark horse pick)

  7. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    68,150 Messages
    15,526 Likes Received

    I could deal with your top 7 (cream actually was the only time I really loved claptons music....most of the other stuff I think is overated but that is just me).

    Cheap Trick I like them but I could not put them in a top 10...same with the other two...actually I think I would feel better with boston over cheap trick.

    I would take out Cheap Trick, Boston and the Rascals and put in the Who, Van Halen and Black Sabbath.

    THEN that would be a top 10 list. :cool:

    Oh that is even considereing the Eagles who I really and not a big fan of but do recognize they deserve to be in the list....for me Personally I like The Steve Miller band better....just as I like the Allman brothers better then Skynard.
  8. Juke99

    Juke99 ...Abbey someone

    22,271 Messages
    3 Likes Received

    Well, I'll give up the Rascals for The Who...even though everything they did sounds the same to me...

    The only reason I had Cheap Trick over Boston is because they did what they did for a long time. Boston had the one flash in the pan album and then it was over.

    Tell ya what, how 'bout we switch Boston for Foreigner?

    You're not allowed to put Van Halen on the list because there were two different lead singers. That immediately disqualifies them. (yeah, I made that rule just now)

    Sabbath was too narrow. It's more of a cult band...

    If you want to start a thread for "cult" bands, I'd probably have them at the top of the list.

    With regard to Clapton..I think the guy is a tremendous song writer. He's written in a zillion different styles and clearly has stood the test of time. Although I was very tempted to put the Jimi Hendrix experience in my list instead of Cream.
  9. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    68,150 Messages
    15,526 Likes Received
    You disqualify one of the greatest rock bands because they have had two singers...you need to go back to bed :D

    Cult band or not a true sign of a great band is when they have influenced a huge number of bands or genre and that influence is still going today. IMO they were the true godfathers of Heavy Metal....they are way more then a Cult.

    Oh Clapton is great and I would not rag anyone over him....I just happen to mostly like his work with Cream....Cream was just so good that IMO his other stuff by and large pales in comparison.

    Oh and AC/DC has to be in consideration as well....yes Two singers :D
  10. Juke99

    Juke99 ...Abbey someone

    22,271 Messages
    3 Likes Received

    I extend the olive branch of compromise and what do I get in return? Bubkas.

    Just for that, I'm reinstating my original list. :) And I'm gonna add Peter, Paul and Mary. :D

    And FYI, I think it's a negative that Black Sabbath influenced today's bands. Just listen to them.
  11. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    68,150 Messages
    15,526 Likes Received

    Just think though....there are really not that many good young bands out there today, whether they be influenced by Sabbath, the Beatles or the Stones.

    Just not many great bands right now.

    I blame it more on the record industry and it's need to carbon copy a forumula to make a buck.
  12. Juke99

    Juke99 ...Abbey someone

    22,271 Messages
    3 Likes Received

    Funny conversation I was having the other day.

    I was talking with a customer about the music we listened to when we were kids...and how our parents hated it and said it was garbage...no way the Beatles, Stones, Zep were garbage. But that today, we say most of it is garbage and it really is.

    I listen to music today (from a musician's perspective...there's music I don't like but appreciate anyway because of how the song is written...or the musicianship, etc) and there's hardly anything that I respect.

    In fact, I think most of the "songs" that are being written today are country songs...and those are starting to become, as you say, carbon copies as well.
  13. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    68,150 Messages
    15,526 Likes Received

    Very good points.

    You know after thinking about it I guess many times for MANY years the whole carbon copy thing has been going on.

    I mean as much as I love motown, many of those songs and styles were the same, many of them had dance moves the same and as BZ pointed out the Funk Brothers made much of the music for different bands. It was a formula for the most part.....but man it was some sweet music compared to much of it today....and this coming from a metal head lol.
    How about Pat Boone.....I mean he was the ultimate in cover artists back in that time period.....but for different racial reasons.

    So I guess it goes back pretty far and I am sure our age has to be a big factor .

    Also you talk about country music....I hardly ever listen to country music but what little I do hear now that is doing well among people seems to be more of southern fried rock then the country music I remembered back when I was a kid.
  14. Yeagermeister

    Yeagermeister Active Member

    47,596 Messages
    20 Likes Received
    Remove REM and it's a list I can work with.
  15. Juke99

    Juke99 ...Abbey someone

    22,271 Messages
    3 Likes Received

    Well sure..it goes back a LONG way.... remember your Sinatra wall paper? It was going on back then...Sinatra, Martin, Vale, Como, Bennett, Damone, etc...all Italian singers.

    And the big bands before that.

    The Motown stuff was great. BUT...don't mistake the similarity in production for similarity in songs. Yes, those songs had a similar "sound" but the songs were incredibly well written and the performers were all unique...The Four Tops, Supremes, The Temptations, Stevie Wonder...genre the same, but VERY different from eachother.
  16. Hostile

    Hostile The Duke

    119,480 Messages
    4,173 Likes Received
    In the order I enjoy them, not necessarily where I think they rank all time.

    1. Pink Floyd

    2. Led Zeppelin

    3. Van Halen

    4. Aerosmith

    5. Rush

    6. U2

    7. Rolling Stones

    8. Eagles

    9. Ozzy Osbourne

    10. Scorpions
  17. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    68,150 Messages
    15,526 Likes Received

    Well you will always have those that stand out in any genre, but a great deal of it was just the same ole same ole.
  18. Juke99

    Juke99 ...Abbey someone

    22,271 Messages
    3 Likes Received

    Only a foot tapping challenged person would have a top 10, without the Beatles. :)

    And how can you call yourself an American if you don't have CCR in your list?

  19. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    68,150 Messages
    15,526 Likes Received

    It's sad that the scorpions usually get over looked...great band IMO.
  20. Hoov

    Hoov Senior Member

    5,945 Messages
    1,113 Likes Received
    Yeah i agree. Its funny but my favorite songs by any group always end up being the ones that will never make the radio. The real original stuff that just isnt in with the pop cultutre.

    My favorite Stones album = exile on main st, so many great songs that never get radio play.

    Favorite Floyd album = The Final Cut and then Animals

    Zeppelin might be the exception because they do get a lot of play and a varierty of their stuff gets played.

    The grateful dead (maybe they dont belong here as not really a "rock" band - more folk, blues or bluegrass) but they had so many good jams and almost never get any radio play.

Share This Page