Van Halen is the greatest band of all time

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

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]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

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]

Originally Posted by creekster

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]

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]

Originally Posted by creekster

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]

How can you guys leave Pink Floyd out of this discussion?

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.