Who is the greatest rock and roll band of all time? (2 Viewers)

[gboudx]

There’s no such thing

I like this answer. There’s so many nuances and perspectives of direction you can go with this topic. What constitutes ”greatest”? Longest tenure? Most top 10 hits? Largest and widest influence? A case can be made for many already mentioned; the Beatles, Allman’s, Zepplin, Queen. How about the Stones, Rush, U2, AC/DC? I just enjoy the music.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

He means the pop rock that played at Pontchartrain Beach when he was making kissy eyes with Mary Beth Bettancourt

Reminds me of when the late, great Johnny Carson to ‘wax nostalgiac’ about his high school girlfriend.. she was Italian.. “Gina Statutore“ (“Stat-u-TORY”).

 

[St. Widge]

Anyone who answers anything but “The Beatles” is jsut trying to be contrarian.


For your proof, just watch any number of interviews on youtube with rock legends, or even minor rock stars , anyone you can think of, and almost to a man, or woman, they all say the same EXACT thing- ‘Well, i was ___ years old when i saw The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, and it changed my life.. set the direction for my career from that night on’... then all those guys who got influenced by The Beatles, then influenced the NEXT generation.. so it all really starts with The Beatles.. BUT not only did they start everything, they also PERFECTED it as they went along.. that’s a tough combo to beat.

But, I mean, the Beatles were inspired by Buddy Holly, Elvis, and Little Richard. And they were all inspired by blues musicians who came before them. And I'm sure those guys were inspired by someone before them. So how does that make The Beatles somehow the "greatest band"? It doesn't seem that who inspires who is a valid consideration in deciding on greatest band since the line goes back to infinity.

FWIW, I appreciate the work The Beatles did, but I don't like to listen to any of it. The early stuff is just good pop music, which is fine, but nothing earth shattering. The older stuff is better, but still nothing amazing. But, that doesn't mean that what they did wasn't important, especially in the realm of pop music.

So, in the end, as with all music, it's totally subjective.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

But, I mean, the Beatles were inspired by Buddy Holly, Elvis, and Little Richard. And they were all inspired by blues musicians who came before them. And I'm sure those guys were inspired by someone before them. So how does that make The Beatles somehow the "greatest band"? It doesn't seem that who inspires who is a valid consideration in deciding on greatest band since the line goes back to infinity.

FWIW, I appreciate the work The Beatles did, but I don't like to listen to any of it. The early stuff is just good pop music, which is fine, but nothing earth shattering. The older stuff is better, but still nothing amazing. But, that doesn't mean that what they did wasn't important, especially in the realm of pop music.

So, in the end, as with all music, it's totally subjective.

Without specific parameters, I consider ‘great’ to mean ‘significant mix of breadth and depth’
I wouldn’t add influence to the list - or more like I would not prioritize it over breadth/depth - bc like you say Elvis is hugely influential but lacks both breadth and depth (by a LOT)
Like Picasso is greatest artist bc there is significant depth but insane breadth (over say a Van Gogh or Rembrandt bc while their craft might have a bit more depth, their range is very narrow)(but if someone wanted to make a Michelangelo argument I couldn’t really counter anything except ‘my taste’)

of course there are exceptions like JS Bach whose mere depth just nullifies all other arguments

but in terms of Rock - nothing comes close the The Beatles’ Breadth+Depth

 

[St. Widge]

Without specific parameters, I consider ‘great’ to mean ‘significant mix of breadth and depth’
I wouldn’t add influence to the list - or more like I would not prioritize it over breadth/depth - bc like you say Elvis is hugely influential but lacks both breadth and depth (by a LOT)
Like Picasso is greatest artist bc there is significant depth but insane breadth (over say a Van Gogh or Rembrandt bc while their craft might have a bit more depth, their range is very narrow)(but if someone wanted to make a Michelangelo argument I couldn’t really counter anything except ‘my taste’)

of course there are exceptions like JS Bach whose mere depth just nullifies all other arguments

but in terms of Rock - nothing comes close the The Beatles’ Breadth+Depth

But, that is a purely subjective opinion. A band only has breadth and depth if you subjectively like a lot of their songs and like a lot of their songs over a long period of time or in a number of different genres. I think a musician can be an objectively good musician, but I don't think you can really have an objective opinion on whether songs are good or bad. I mean, a great musician might make nothing but bad songs from a subjective point of view.

For me, the Beatles don't qualify in either of those things. I think a few Beatles songs are okay, but if I never heard another one, it wouldn't bother me. So, to me, they have no depth or breadth. They are just a pop band that had a few good musicians in it and sold a lot of records. Personally, in that genre, I much prefer the Rolling Stones, and I'm not a big fan of them. For my taste, they have more breadth and depth than The Beatles.

Still, I think the Beatles are a "great band", that just isn't within my taste. But given that everyone's taste is different, I don't see how any definitive position can be taken on which band is the "greatest."

 

[Mamba]

you can't be southern and not love skyward.

 

[faceman]

Queen, I don't care to know how wrong you are if you disagree.

They are not my favorite,but I will say this. It was the best concert I ever attended. Billy Squire opened for them at the Ms. coast coliseum in 82. Hearing Freddie's voice live was a honor.

 

[sammymvpknight]

Do boy bands count?

 

[DoubleSaint]

I don’t think people truly understand and appreciate just how much music has been inspired by the Beatles, either directly or indirectly.
We’re talking all genres of music here too, the Beatles did things nobody had even thought of.

The Beatles changed music forever.

 

[sammymvpknight]

I don’t think people truly understand and appreciate just how much music has been inspired by the Beatles, either directly or indirectly.
We’re talking all genres of music here too, the Beatles did things nobody had even thought of.

The Beatles changed music forever.

Elvis was so good he didn’t need a band. He was an inspiration for groups like the Beatles.

 

[soupcan dan]

The Hip

 

[BroKV]

Queen, back then

Metallica, the last 35+ years

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Do boy bands count?

1. cut a hole in a box
2. put your junk in that box
...like that?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Elvis was so good he didn’t need a band. He was an inspiration for groups like the Beatles.

fight the power

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

But, that is a purely subjective opinion. A band only has breadth and depth if you subjectively like a lot of their songs and like a lot of their songs over a long period of time or in a number of different genres. I think a musician can be an objectively good musician, but I don't think you can really have an objective opinion on whether songs are good or bad. I mean, a great musician might make nothing but bad songs from a subjective point of view.

For me, the Beatles don't qualify in either of those things. I think a few Beatles songs are okay, but if I never heard another one, it wouldn't bother me. So, to me, they have no depth or breadth. They are just a pop band that had a few good musicians in it and sold a lot of records. Personally, in that genre, I much prefer the Rolling Stones, and I'm not a big fan of them. For my taste, they have more breadth and depth than The Beatles.

Still, I think the Beatles are a "great band", that just isn't within my taste. But given that everyone's taste is different, I don't see how any definitive position can be taken on which band is the "greatest."

well 'purely' subjective is not quite accurate either
there is informed perspective
and then there is what you wrote above