Zuben Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 While Surfing the net on another sleepless night, I ran in this top 100 Rock bands. AVRev.coms Top Ten It is set up on a point system that makes sense. The judgs were chosen with some intelligence. I might not agree with all of them but it is one of the better I have seen. Peace http://www.spotcheckbilly.com http://www.littlefeat.net http://www.bonnieraitt.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickygclef Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Rolling Stones # 20 ?! The list tries to use reason, but again it is only opinion. I would imagine for airplay, influence, songwriting, sales and longevity the Stones would have to be higher than that -especially given the bands that are under them (no matter how they skew the numbers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Eh, because of plagiarism, I'll knock Zep down a little bit, still, at least it's a better list than some of Rolling Stone's list. Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=810593 http://www.myspace.com/dandelavega Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squ Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Ah... lists... I'm kind of sick of them... I'm also sick of trying to mix scores/math with art... or art and objectivity. That being said, this is kind of a fun list. It's also pretty silly... why is Zeppelin more consistent than the Beatles? Or how is Bob Marley more innovative than Queen? Certainly way better than Rolling Stone's top guitarists list! Red Red Rockit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbote Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 The Kinks #89? If songs matter like they say, how could Ray Davies' songs/songwriting be in the 50s? As lists go, this one is just as nonsensical as others. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolead Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 This list is as bad as the ACTs, SATs, GREs, LSATs, or any other ridiculous, ostentatious exam that tries to grade someone's ability to do anything numerically. Sure, sometimes those scores reflect the talent or ability of a band, but personally, outside of sales, I find the Beatles to be an insult to musical taste. I've tried to like them, and I respect their influence, but I certainly cannot stand listening to them. Even had an ex-girlfriend who forced me to listen to them. Not worth my time. And why is Iron Maiden so far down on the list? I certainly think they had way more innovation, talent, and musical taste than Stone Temple Pilots. But as everyone here has pointed out: lists are a waste of time. Shut up and play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soggybomb Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 there is no subjective way to rank bands. music is a matter of personal taste. my top 100 bands would be completely different. that said, i was relieved to see rush and yes ranked very highly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smirk Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Wow, never saw Slayer and Black Eyed Peas next to each other on a list before. And yeah, the Stones that far down is just dumb. Wonder what the new Linkin Park album would sound like if they didn't have Perfect Circle to steal from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitarzan Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 here is my top list list.... 1-100 none! http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=193274 rock it, i will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitarzannie Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Well that's why I don't put too much importance on lists. I like the Bee Gees (earlier stuff mostly) and the Carpenters, but above the Animals on a rock band list? That's just sad. Michelle My new baby is a 2002 Collectors by Ovation I think this is a cool song title -- "Can't Remember to Forget" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramer Ferrington III. Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Rolling Stones # 20 ?! *shrug* Personally, I haven't bought a new Stones' album since "Undercover", in 1984. That's TWENTY-FOUR (24!) years ago. And I'm by no means alone in this. If you consider 24 years of so-so records and just plain awful records, then that can really screw up a band's averages. Band MySpace My snazzy t-shirt empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smirk Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Rolling Stones # 20 ?! *shrug* Personally, I haven't bought a new Stones' album since "Undercover", in 1984. That's TWENTY-FOUR (24!) years ago. And I'm by no means alone in this. If you consider 24 years of so-so records and just plain awful records, then that can really screw up a band's averages. Well Van Halen was several spots above them so I'm not sure how that works out, when did they last release something good? Wonder what the new Linkin Park album would sound like if they didn't have Perfect Circle to steal from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramer Ferrington III. Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Rolling Stones # 20 ?! *shrug* Personally, I haven't bought a new Stones' album since "Undercover", in 1984. That's TWENTY-FOUR (24!) years ago. And I'm by no means alone in this. If you consider 24 years of so-so records and just plain awful records, then that can really screw up a band's averages. Well Van Halen was several spots above them so I'm not sure how that works out, when did they last release something good? well, the Stones have been playing since 1962. That makes the band uhmmm... 46 years old. Which stretches the number of GOOD albums out a lot. Say you had a band that lasted three years and put out two good albums. Your good album average would be a lot higher than a band that lasted fifteen years and put out three good albums, wouldn't it? Band MySpace My snazzy t-shirt empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickygclef Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I just had to revisit this. Take a close look at this list. http://www.avrev.com/bands/ I had to show it to alot of people and everyone I sent it to got PO'd at it. This list is just a joke and completely irrelevent. To buy into their scoring system is utterly ridiculous. It tries to use rationale, but again it is just opinion from critics. Obviously everyone has their favorites and that will always sway any objectivity. I consider myself fairly knowledgable about music and alot of things but who is "Orbital"? and why do they place @ #60 ahead of Little Feat, Black Sabbath, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Traffic & The Kinks? Dixie Chicks @#43 ? and I like them alot, but c'mon? Whatever! Anyway everyone knows the real truth, but to take the time to concoct something like this and think people will give it any credence (Oh.. CreedenceCR? #57?!) is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Also, I'm wondering how U2 has more technical ability than AC/DC:confused: Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=810593 http://www.myspace.com/dandelavega Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Ellwood Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 LOL!! 71.Lynyrd Skynyrd and 49.The Beastie Boys WTF!!! http://www.thestringnetwork.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duff beer Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Also, I'm wondering how U2 has more technical ability than AC/DC:confused: Because the voters thought that making a guitar sound like a keyboard is technically more difficult than playing lead??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panic Button Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Black Eyed Peas...100? Someone has to die. I go to the site, see "NEW FOR 2008" I'm all "OH GOODY!" and i click it and it's all "ALL NEW AMERICAN STANDARD SERIES!" and I'm like..."what?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet dissonance Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Psh what a list. Yes I agree music is definitely a matter of personal taste and cannot be dictated by a few select people. My list's top 11 would be: 1. Pink Floyd 2. Silversun Pickups 3. Murder by Death 4. Coheed and cambria 5. Yes 6. Meat Loaf 7. The Decemberists 8. Billy Joel 9. Heart 10.Dave Matthews Band 11. Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers Not necessarily in that order. I couldn't decide a rank.They're all amazing. Many people would disagree but again it's a matter of personal taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panic Button Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I have a little thing against Dave Matthews. I live in Chicago. We will never forget the tourbus inccident. That being said, the music is pretty good. I go to the site, see "NEW FOR 2008" I'm all "OH GOODY!" and i click it and it's all "ALL NEW AMERICAN STANDARD SERIES!" and I'm like..."what?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramer Ferrington III. Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 To buy into their scoring system is utterly ridiculous. It tries to use rationale, but again it is just opinion from critics. No, there's a record sales component as well, IIRC. It's not just critical opinion. Mind you, how one defines "record sales" is a whole question to itself. But yeah... who cares anyway. My tastes aren't about to be swayed by some list. Band MySpace My snazzy t-shirt empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet dissonance Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I have a little thing against Dave Matthews. I live in Chicago. We will never forget the tourbus inccident. That being said, the music is pretty good. I understand, I know people who are mad about that, but from what i've heard it sounds like it was the bus driver who actually dumped the...stuff....into the river. I forgot to put Led Zeppelin on my list! How could I??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panic Button Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 It was the bus driver. But the band pays the bus driver. I go to the site, see "NEW FOR 2008" I'm all "OH GOODY!" and i click it and it's all "ALL NEW AMERICAN STANDARD SERIES!" and I'm like..."what?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet dissonance Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 well maybe (hopefully) they fired the bus driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.