cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Art/Movies/Media/Music/Books (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Van Halen is the greatest band of all time (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13009)

Judge Smails 10-19-2007 03:33 PM
Van Halen is the greatest band of all time
 
carry on.

bluegoose 10-19-2007 03:38 PM
Just yesterday in the office we were listening to OU812. They do have some good stuff. In HS they were my #1 band.

Which begs the question - Sammy Hagar or David Lee Roth?

For me, its Sammy all the way.

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegoose (Post 138702)
Just yesterday in the office we were listening to OU812. They do have some good stuff. In HS they were my #1 band.

Which begs the question - Sammy Hagar or David Lee Roth?

For me, its Sammy all the way.
I am trying to decide between the Mitch Malloy era or the Gary Cherone era.

I love Van Halen's song, "More than Words." Very romantic...

creekster 10-19-2007 03:40 PM
If you neeed a score card to keeop up with who the olead singer is, it isn't the greatest band.

bluegoose 10-19-2007 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 138704)
I am trying to decide between the Mitch Malloy era or the Gary Cherone era.

I love Van Halen's song, "More than Words." Very romantic...
Thats a pretty Extreme position to take, but whatever....

bluegoose 10-19-2007 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138709)
If you neeed a score card to keeop up with who the olead singer is, it isn't the greatest band.
It isn't "Hagar" or "Roth". Its Van Halen. As long as Eddie and Alex are there, they can still be on the ballot.

Archaea 10-19-2007 03:43 PM
Van Halen isn't even in the same league as Led Zeppelin. Geeze, get with the program. man.

Jeff Lebowski 10-19-2007 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 138716)
Van Halen isn't even in the same league as Led Zeppelin. Geeze, get with the program. man.
VH is good, but Archaea speaks the truth here.

creekster 10-19-2007 03:48 PM
So what are the criteria? How are we to judge the greatest band?

SeattleUte 10-19-2007 03:51 PM
After all these years, I have to say it's between the Stones and the Beatles, neck and neck.

I must have grown up in the nadir of rock and roll. None of my old favorite bands have aged well. The Doobie Bros., The Eagles, Elton John, America, Loggins & Messina, Jethro Tull. Bleck! I can't bear to listen to any of them. I like Neil Young and still could enjoy him, but someone told me he's really, like Dylan, a '60's phenomenon.

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138709)
If you neeed a score card to keeop up with who the olead singer is, it isn't the greatest band.
Ways to know Van Halen is NOT the greatest band:

1. Your song prominently appears in the movie "Better off Dead"
2. You employ 4 lead singers over 20 years...an average of one every 5 years.
3. Your son grows up and joins your band
4. You are currently doing a "reunion" show, after "reuniting" multiple times over the years
5. The USAF adopts one of your songs for use in its commercials
6. Gene Simmons was bossing you around and wanted to change your band's name to "Daddy Longlegs"
7. You guest solo on a Michael Jackson song
8. You write a song about a tequila bar in Mexico...then start branding and selling tequila by the same name.
9. You wear white denim overalls. Ever.

creekster 10-19-2007 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte (Post 138726)
After all these years, I have to say it's between the Stones and the Beatles, neck and neck.

I must have grown up in the nadir of rock and roll. None of my old favorite bands have aged well. The Doobie Bros., The Eagles, Elton John, America, Loggins & Messina, Jethro Tull. Bleck! I can't bear to listen to any of them. I like Neil Young and still could enjoy him, but someone told me he's really, like Dylan, a '60's phenomenon.
WHen is the last time you bought a Stones album? The Stones WERE rgeat, no doubt, but after the last 372 albums, all issued in support fo the steel wheel chair tour or somesuch, I can't say they do much for me now. SO you still like to hear Jagger bellow about sex but can't listen to the Eagles and tequila sunrise? Different strokes (Classic Stones is still great, IMO)

I think choosing the greatest band ever is very hard unless you define the criteria. Are we talking live perfromances? Beatles lose and Springsteen vaults very high. Are we tlakign recorded perfromances? Beatles leap back up and other groups like Steely Dan suddenly show well. SO it all depends on what we are talkign about. Eiother way, and I do admire Eddy's gyuitar work, Van Halen does not make my perosnla top 5 (and this is coming from a guy who was in a band that covered almost every song from their first two albums, so I know early VH pretty well).

SeattleUte 10-19-2007 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138731)
WHen is the last time you bought a Stones album? The Stones WERE rgeat, no doubt, but after the last 372 albums, all issued in support fo the steel wheel chair tour or somesuch, I can't say they do much for me now. SO you still like to hear Jagger bellow about sex but can't listen to the Eagles and tequila sunrise? Different strokes (Classic Stones is still great, IMO)

I think choosing the greatest band ever is very hard unless you define the criteria. Are we talking live perfromances? Beatles lose and Springsteen vaults very high. Are we tlakign recorded perfromances? Beatles leap back up and other groups like Steely Dan suddenly show well. SO it all depends on what we are talkign about. Eiother way, and I do admire Eddy's gyuitar work, Van Halen does not make my perosnla top 5 (and this is coming from a guy who was in a band that covered almost every song from their first two albums, so I know early VH pretty well).
I'm talking about Classic Stones. I haven't bought a Stones album since I was a teenager.

SeattleUte 10-19-2007 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138731)
SO you still like to hear Jagger bellow about sex but can't listen to the Eagles and tequila sunrise? Different strokes (Classic Stones is still great, IMO)
I hope you don't listen to any of this stuff including the Eagles for the poetry. But in my opinion, on that criterion the Beatles win easily, even over Dylan or Young.

I read Richard Dawkins the other day saying Imagine was "brilliant." I was a little surprised, but it made me think about the song differently when I happened to hear it the next day in a coffee shop.

creekster 10-19-2007 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte (Post 138733)
I'm talking about Classic Stones. I haven't bought a Stones album since I was a teenager.

Agreed. Classic stones is great stuff.

jay santos 10-19-2007 04:07 PM
U2 (why can't I type a two character reply?)

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138731)
WHen is the last time you bought a Stones album? The Stones WERE rgeat, no doubt, but after the last 372 albums, all issued in support fo the steel wheel chair tour or somesuch, I can't say they do much for me now. SO you still like to hear Jagger bellow about sex but can't listen to the Eagles and tequila sunrise? Different strokes (Classic Stones is still great, IMO)

I think choosing the greatest band ever is very hard unless you define the criteria. Are we talking live perfromances? Beatles lose and Springsteen vaults very high. Are we tlakign recorded perfromances? Beatles leap back up and other groups like Steely Dan suddenly show well. SO it all depends on what we are talkign about. Eiother way, and I do admire Eddy's gyuitar work, Van Halen does not make my perosnla top 5 (and this is coming from a guy who was in a band that covered almost every song from their first two albums, so I know early VH pretty well).
First criteria is that you must be familiar with more contemporary artists, as well...say the last 10 or 15 so years. And, no, this does not mean tossing out an obligatory U2 reference.

Younger music aficionados can surely appreciate and recognize the place the Stones, Beatles, and Elvis have in the pantheon of rock because we all grew up listening to it with our parents (and it truly is masterful), but I wonder if older people have followed popular contemporary music enough to discuss more current bands, trends, etc..

Not saying you are not able to discuss such (I don't know anyone's age here, mind you), but just wondering out loud.

creekster 10-19-2007 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 138741)
First criteria is that you must be familiar with more contemporary artists, as well...say the last 10 or 15 so years. And, no, this does not mean tossing out an obligatory U2 reference.

Younger music aficionados can surely appreciate and recognize the place the Stones, Beatles, and Elvis have in the pantheon of rock because we all grew up listening to it with our parents (and it truly is masterful), but I wonder if older people have followed popular contemporary music enough to discuss more current bands, trends, etc..

Not saying you are not able to discuss such (I don't know anyone's age here, mind you), but just wondering out loud.
I am an oold fart. 15 years ago, maybe. 10 years? not much. Last five years? turn that damn subwoofer OFF!

SeattleUte 10-19-2007 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 138741)
First criteria is that you must be familiar with more contemporary artists, as well...say the last 10 or 15 so years. And, no, this does not mean tossing out an obligatory U2 reference.

Younger music aficionados can surely appreciate and recognize the place the Stones, Beatles, and Elvis have in the pantheon of rock because we all grew up listening to it with our parents (and it truly is masterful), but I wonder if older people have followed popular contemporary music enough to discuss more current bands, trends, etc..

Not saying you are not able to discuss such (I don't know anyone's age here, mind you), but just wondering out loud.
There is truth in this. But you need to give art at least 15 years before you can tell how well it ages, whether it is derivative or truly ground breaking and influential, and hence its true place in the pantheon. For example, when I was in HS there was not a cooler band than the Doobie Brothers. Now it should be clear they were not masterful. If I knew what I know now I'd have spent more time listening to the Beatles and the Stones than the Doobies.

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138744)
I am an oold fart. 15 years ago, maybe. 10 years? not much. Last five years? turn that damn subwoofer OFF!
Do you prefer the soothing sounds of Jack Benny coming from your Victrola?

Ha, no worries. I love The Beatles. My farts are younger than yours, but I still that given overall music catalogue, longevity, and influence on pretty much everyone (musically, politically, and socially), nobody even comes close to the Beatles.

EVERYONE listens to, knows, or has a Beatles memory--for good or bad. The same likely cannot be said about the Stones. I think the drama and intrigue surrounding Chapman's assassination of John also vaulted them into mythic status.

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte (Post 138749)
There is truth in this. But you need to give art at least 15 years before you can tell how well it ages, whether it is derivative or truly ground breaking and influential, and hence its true place in the pantheon. For example, when I was in HS there was not a cooler band than the Doobie Brothers. Now it should be clear they were not masterful. If I knew what I know now I'd have spent more time listening to the Beatles and the Stones than the Doobies.
Seattle, the one thing you and I can agree one now and forever is that The Beatles are the greatest of all time.

My children are not even three and they already like the Beatles.

And I bet money that their children in 20+ years will also like the Beatles. It is timeless music.

Not sure about the Stones. Check that...I am sure about the Stones.

creekster 10-19-2007 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 138750)
Do you prefer the soothing sounds of Jack Benny coming from your Victrola?

Ha, no worries. I love The Beatles. My farts are younger than yours, but I still that given overall music catalogue, longevity, and influence on pretty much everyone (musically, politically, and socially), nobody even comes close to the Beatles.

EVERYONE listens to, knows, or has a Beatles memory--for good or bad. The same likely cannot be said about the Stones. I think the drama and intrigue surrounding Chapman's assassination of John also vaulted them into mythic status.
Lennon's death probably fixed the bEatles for younger people, but they were already mythic by that time for my genreation. I was on my mission when Lennon was killed. I think in many ways his death was like JFK's death for my parents. I recall very clearly exactly wehre I was and what I was doing the day I learned the music died (I know, that song refers to somebody else, but you get the point).

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138738)
Agreed. Classic stones is great stuff.
This is why The Stones will never touch the Beatles. The Stones' catalog has tiers. Some of it is good, some of it is average, MOST of it is forgettable since they keep putting out crap and touring...conversely, there is no "classic" beatles era. The Beatles continued to evolve and redefine themselves and music. As a matter of fact, as they aged, their later albums blow away their earlier ones (would you rather listen to White, Revolver, Rubber Soul....or With the Beatles...or Meet the Beatles?).

Come to think of it, I don't even really enjoy the Stones that much. I think I like maybe 10-15 of their songs over the years.

creekster 10-19-2007 04:21 PM
But how are we to choose the greatesdt band? One consensus that seems to be emrging among us still particiapting in this thread is that VanHalen is NOT the greatest band under any criteria. True?

RC Vikings 10-19-2007 04:25 PM
After the Beetles I'm gonna throw U2 out there. Still making music after twenty five years that people buy. For the Stones if you buy "Hot Rocks" you've got most of the good stuff and that's only a period of eight years. The Who had a good run of ten years. Led Zeppelin made a big splash but faded fast. I think G n R had a chance to be great but Rose is a dumbass.

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138753)
Lennon's death probably fixed the bEatles for younger people, but they were already mythic by that time for my genreation. I was on my mission when Lennon was killed. I think in many ways his death was like JFK's death for my parents. I recall very clearly exactly wehre I was and what I was doing the day I learned the music died (I know, that song refers to somebody else, but you get the point).
Me, too. I was watching MNF with my family and Cosell dropped the bomb. My older sister cried.

I was only about 8 then, but my explained to me that John was the singer who sang all the songs we listened to in the car and he had been shot.

We would stay in NYC in the summers with our cousins and that following summer we went to the Dakota. Whenever I am in NYC, I usually wind up trying to swing by their, or now Strawberry Fields in Central Park. It is fun to read the tributes people leave to John and the Beatles from all over the world and to see the continued impact their music has on peoples' lives.

Truly, it could be argued that Imagine is the greatest song ever written.

When I went into Junior high, my mom let me read Catcher in the Rye. It has remained my favorite book of all time ever since then (sort of a sentimental favorite).

SeattleUte 10-19-2007 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138753)
Lennon's death probably fixed the bEatles for younger people, but they were already mythic by that time for my genreation. I was on my mission when Lennon was killed. I think in many ways his death was like JFK's death for my parents. I recall very clearly exactly wehre I was and what I was doing the day I learned the music died (I know, that song refers to somebody else, but you get the point).
Are the Beatles the only rock band that, like Shakespeare and Woody Allen, produced brilliant early stuff, then later went on to produce their true masterworks, works of altogether greater complexity and gravity and wholly of a different kind from the early stuff? I think maybe the factor that distinguishes the Beatles is they matured as artists and actually experienced an arc in their creativity. Most rock and roll stars are like meteors.

bluegoose 10-19-2007 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Vikings (Post 138759)
I think G n R had a chance to be great but Rose is a dumbass.
Plus Slash was in a Michael Jackson video, thus disqualifying them by triplets criteria.

SeattleUte 10-19-2007 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138753)
Lennon's death probably fixed the bEatles for younger people, but they were already mythic by that time for my genreation. I was on my mission when Lennon was killed. I think in many ways his death was like JFK's death for my parents. I recall very clearly exactly wehre I was and what I was doing the day I learned the music died (I know, that song refers to somebody else, but you get the point).
I was watching Monday night football.

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138756)
But how are we to choose the greatesdt band? One consensus that seems to be emrging among us still particiapting in this thread is that VanHalen is NOT the greatest band under any criteria. True?
This is a fun topic for me. I love music.

OK, I will throw out some ideas in NO order and see what the group thinks:

1. Reasonable stability within the band...meaning if you change band members every few years and wind up with a load of people who can say they were in your band, then you do not qualify.
2. Commercial success...while this should NEVER be the measure of greatness, it is usually a measure of mass and broad appeal. Kind of hard to argue for membership in the pantheon if you did not sell a lot of records
3. Touring...I dont think this should be a major criteria because it would be unfair to earlier acts (Elvis, for example) when touring was not as important. While the Beatles were likely lousy live and opted to not tour after their Candlestick show, can anyone name an iconic Stones show? The Beatles appearance on Ed Sullivan and on the rooftops on Saville Row are some of the most iconic performances in rock history.
4. Innovation....did you take music in a new direction? What did you do that was innovative?
5. Longevity.....are people still listening to your music and talking about your for good? Or are they talking about you because you stuck around for so long?
6. Influence....who have you influenced? do artists reference you as an influence?
7. Impact......did you do something to impact, for good or bad, the political or social landscape of your time and beyond?

Anyway, some thoughts.

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegoose (Post 138762)
Plus Slash was in a Michael Jackson video, thus disqualifying them by triplets criteria.
Slash is also a character in a video game....WAY disqualified.

RC Vikings 10-19-2007 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte (Post 138761)
Are the Beatles the only rock band that, like Shakespeare and Woody Allen, produced brilliant early stuff, then later went on to produce their true masterworks, works of altogether greater complexity and gravity and wholly of a different kind from the early stuff? I think maybe the factor that distinguishes the Beatles is they matured as artists and actually experienced an arc in their creativity. Most rock and roll stars are like meteors.
Did their increased drug use help or hurt their later stuff?

creekster 10-19-2007 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 138765)
This is a fun topic for me. I love music.

OK, I will throw out some ideas in NO order and see what the group thinks:

1. Reasonable stability within the band...meaning if you change band members every few years and wind up with a load of people who can say they were in your band, then you do not qualify.
2. Commercial success...while this should NEVER be the measure of greatness, it is usually a measure of mass and broad appeal. Kind of hard to argue for membership in the pantheon if you did not sell a lot of records
3. Touring...I dont think this should be a major criteria because it would be unfair to earlier acts (Elvis, for example) when touring was not as important. While the Beatles were likely lousy live and opted to not tour after their Candlestick show, can anyone name an iconic Stones show? The Beatles appearance on Ed Sullivan and on the rooftops on Saville Row are some of the most iconic performances in rock history.
4. Innovation....did you take music in a new direction? What did you do that was innovative?
5. Longevity.....are people still listening to your music and talking about your for good? Or are they talking about you because you stuck around for so long?
6. Influence....who have you influenced? do artists reference you as an influence?
7. Impact......did you do something to impact, for good or bad, the political or social landscape of your time and beyond?

Anyway, some thoughts.
U2 looks very good based on these criteria.

creekster 10-19-2007 04:59 PM
Back to Lennon's death, for a moment, I was on my mission, as I said. I was in a ltitle town outside of QUebec city ( a suburb, really) and we were going to a meeting at a memebrs house where we were going to perfrom "I'll build you a Rainbow" and as we passed a small neighborhood store (think tabacerie) there was a crowd gathered looking at a sign in the window. The sign said "Lennon est mort" I asked poeople what had happened and they told us and I was in shock for the rest of the night. The song we later perfromed was very difficult for me. This sounds really sappy, but it is seared in my mind. WHich is weird becasue I always like Ringo who was alsways so happy compared to Lennon, who always was so somber and all "I'm gonna change the world" and stuff.

SeattleUte 10-19-2007 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Vikings (Post 138768)
Did their increased drug use help or hurt their later stuff?
I know that some great novelists claim they had to be wasted to do their best stuff. I never understood that because I can't bear to do any kind of work even having drunk a little. And for me, work is usually much more transportive and soothing than alcohol, which is why I'm a workaholic and one reason I could never be an alcoholic.

SeattleUte 10-19-2007 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138770)
Back to Lennon's death, for a moment, I was on my mission, as I said. I was in a ltitle town outside of QUebec city ( a suburb, really) and we were going to a meeting at a memebrs house where we were going to perfrom "I'll build you a Rainbow" and as we passed a small neighborhood store (think tabacerie) there was a crowd gathered looking at a sign in the window. The sign said "Lennon est mort" I asked poeople what had happened and they told us and I was in shock for the rest of the night. The song we later perfromed was very difficult for me. This sounds really sappy, but it is seared in my mind. WHich is weird becasue I always like Ringo who was alsways so happy compared to Lennon, who always was so somber and all "I'm gonna change the world" and stuff.
Great story.

Archaea 10-19-2007 05:46 PM
Greatness is almost impossible to define.

And I agree with Seattle that groups need time to mature, but perhaps we should substitute influential for greatness.

Elvis and the Beatles are the most influential.

Two groups I never really appreciated Grateful Dead and the Stones, though a few classics are tolerable.

I'm surprised Seattle doesn't like Jethro Tull very well, as I still enjoy his works.

Today's two more interesting groups are Pumpkin Tree and Ozric Tentacles, but I doubt they'll be influential.

I'll always enjoy Zep, so much so that I'm buying the Allison Krause and Robert Plant release of Raising Sand coming out on the 23d of this month.

However, Rush was and is influential. I hate to say it, but Chicago also influence work. U2 carries an influence, and I prefer Sting to U2.

I'm trying to decide what I think of Radiohead. Of the British invasion bands today, Oasis isn't bad.

TripletDaddy 10-19-2007 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138769)
U2 looks very good based on these criteria.
I do not enjoy U2 and have never been a huge fan of their music. I have a few of their albums and even saw them live twice....once in concert and once on the top of a roof that was made semi famous in one of their videos. Still, I just do not like them that much.

That being said, I would argue all day long that they belong in the pantheon. They continue to be relevant socially, musically, and politically (regardless of Bono's pompous persona). They definitely have redefined themselves musically and have a catalogue that is quite diverse--electronica, rock, ballads, r&b, jazz, and country influenced tunes, as well.

cougjunkie 10-19-2007 06:41 PM
How can you guys leave Pink Floyd out of this discussion?

bluegoose 10-19-2007 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster (Post 138769)
U2 looks very good based on these criteria.
As does Rush.

Both of which are bands who may qualify as top-10 all time bands who I cannot stand to listen to. Growing up, I had several friends who were Rush and U2 freaks and would listen to them all the time. But for some reason they have both always been intolerable to me.

Technically, they may be sound, but they are completely unlistenable to me. I've got a couple of U2 albums and even put them on my iPod, but every time they come on it takes me about 3 seconds to fast forward to the next track.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:46 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.