Worst band ever: REM or Chili Peppers?

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

I wonder if this chap has ever heard of Muse or Radiohead?

I guess it's just a generational thing.

I will always take 'Fall on Me' or "Scar Tissue' over anything the Beatles ever did. This isn't because I don't rate the Beatles but because I find them bland, derivitive and cloyingly 'nice'

The Stones? Well, yes, but The Who wrote better songs and Cream were far better musicians than any of them.

Why pre-disco for the Bee Gees? Or are you really that narrow minded?

I bet you hate Nirvana, too...

[rk_sports]

Calling either of them as the "worst ever" is harsh... I see your point about the hype.. there might be some truth there.. but that true for a LOT of highly successful bands
If your poll said.. "which is worse of these 2 bands".. you might get somewhere...maybe

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by heycal

Guys, we can spend days debating which band is best using our subjective opinions, so maybe it's better if we just scientifically quantify things to put this matter to rest. I've gone ahead and run the numbers, and the results are contained herein.

Using a 1-10 scoring system, with 10 being the best, the following bands score thusly. (Please keep in mind that this list is not exhaustive, solo and solo-type acts are not included, and I reserve the right to add bands I've forgotten to the list, as well as adjust rankings as new data comes in. While we don't have space here to explain all the variables that go into determining a band's final number, perhaps the most important one is sheer number of great songs. Also, the margin of error is 1<.)

10: The Beatles

9: The Rolling Stones

8: The Beach Boys

7: Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Pink Floyd, The Bee Gees (pre-disco of course), The Who (mostly on the strength of Tommy).

6: Cream, Jefferson Airplane, The Mama's and the Papa's, The Byrds.

There are many other bands that produced many wonderful songs, but for one reason don't qualify as 6 or above. But it should be stressed that a band that rates a VERY respectable 4 or 5 is a VERY good band, so please don't be upset if you don't see your favorite band listed.

Finally, bringing up the rear, we have:

-2: REM
-3: Red Hot Chili Peppers

Any questions? And do feel free to inquire about the scores of your favorites!

Queen can't be left out. The same for Kansas, Muse and King Crimson.

But glad you mentioned Bee Gees when 90% of the people think they're just "Stayin' Alive" and the disco crap and ignore their first albums.

[tricky]

I grew up on Disco-era Bee Gees, so it bypasses my muso filter entirely. I love it, all of it.

I love Cream, but I'd put the Experience above them (studio innovation, guitar, signature songs, etc.)

Velvet Underground should go on there, rating at least a 7.

Beatles had nothing to do with all this, huh?

It can't be understated how much the Beach Boys influenced British pop music. That influence was wider reaching and longer lasting than their legacy in the States; that may be part of the disconnect. The way the Who and Queen arrange and produce harmonies go back to the Beach Boys. The way the Beatles use minor keys to evoke unresolved melancholy behind lovelorn lyrics go back to the Beach Boys. Phil Spector and Brill Building popularized reverb as a way to convey foreground/background in pop, but the Beach Boys introduced the idea of miniaturist pop.

Pet Sounds had a fluency in arrangement that even eludes Revolver and Sgt Pepper. The production is forward thinking, but never treated as a special effect.

[dParis]

Originally Posted by chrischris

Personally, i will never underestimate the judgement of people younger than me.. not even when it comes to jeans.

Yes, underestimation and overestimation are pitfalls best avoided, but proper and reliable estimation comes, most dependably, through experience.

Originally Posted by r2473

I have it on good authority that women are wild for old men in skinny jeans.

That's a good one. What delusional fool told you that?

[joeri888]

If you judge the Beatles today, sure there are many better sounds and compositions. But if you compare them to THEIR ERA, they are absolutely GOATing. It's seriously a lot like tennis. Put Rod Laver with his wooden racquet and his S&V and no nutrition advisor, fitness coach, physiotherapeut etc. up against some random top 200 dude and he gets roasted. That doesn't mean that he wasn't influential and amazing for his time. The Beatles are like that.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by joeri888

If you judge the Beatles today, sure there are many better sounds and compositions. But if you compare them to THEIR ERA, they are absolutely GOATing. It's seriously a lot like tennis. Put Rod Laver with his wooden racquet and his S&V and no nutrition advisor, fitness coach, physiotherapeut etc. up against some random top 200 dude and he gets roasted. That doesn't mean that he wasn't influential and amazing for his time. The Beatles are like that.

Sound yes. Compositions, not so much. Some Lennon songs could be written 20 years from now and would still be masterpieces.

[Tafmatch]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Sound yes. Compositions, not so much. Some Lennon songs could be written 20 years from now and would still be masterpieces.

This is correct. It's the compositions that made the Beatles so great and influential. Compare it to the Rolling Stones and it's a whole different league.

[heycal]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

I wonder if this chap has ever heard of Muse or Radiohead?

Poor kid. These guys will not be remembered in 10, 20, or 30 years, but the Beatles sure will.

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

The Stones? Well, yes, but The Who wrote better songs and Cream were far better musicians than any of them.

"Tommy" was fantastic, but no too much else the Who did is in a league with the best of the best. And not really interested in the musicianship of Cream, since it's less important than their output. (Think a guy with a great serve and volley, but who can't put it all together very often.)

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

Why pre-disco for the Bee Gees? Or are you really that narrow minded?

I bet you hate Nirvana, too...

Because the disco stuff was pretty lame (though I guess not bad when compared with other, lamer disco stuff.) As for Nirvana, they were decent.

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Queen can't be left out. The same for Kansas, Muse and King Crimson.

But glad you mentioned Bee Gees when 90% of the people think they're just "Stayin' Alive" and the disco crap and ignore their first albums.

Kansas?? As for Queen, Freddie Mercury was a hugely talented singer as mentioned previously, but the quality of their output was more than a bit shaky. "Another one bites the dust"? Eee Gads...

Originally Posted by tricky

I grew up on Disco-era Bee Gees, so it bypasses my muso filter entirely. I love it, all of it.

I love Cream, but I'd put the Experience above them (studio innovation, guitar, signature songs, etc.)

Velvet Underground should go on there, rating at least a 7.

It can't be understated how much the Beach Boys influenced British pop music. That influence was wider reaching and longer lasting than their legacy in the States; that may be part of the disconnect. The way the Who and Queen arrange and produce harmonies go back to the Beach Boys. The way the Beatles use minor keys to evoke unresolved melancholy behind lovelorn lyrics go back to the Beach Boys. Phil Spector and Brill Building popularized reverb as a way to convey foreground/background in pop, but the Beach Boys introduced the idea of miniaturist pop.

Pet Sounds had a fluency in arrangement that even eludes Revolver and Sgt Pepper. The production is forward thinking, but never treated as a special effect.

Originally Posted by tricky

I grew up on Disco-era Bee Gees, so it bypasses my muso filter entirely. I love it, all of it.

Originally Posted by tricky

I grew up on Disco-era Bee Gees, so it bypasses my muso filter entirely. I love it, all of it.

I grew up with it too, unfortunately, and only discovered the good Bee Gees stuff later on.

Originally Posted by tricky

I love Cream, but I'd put the Experience above them (studio innovation, guitar, signature songs, etc.)

Velvet Underground should go on there, rating at least a 7.

I didn't know what to do with Hendrix, since I consider him a solo-type act, but If I did put him on there, he'd probably be in the 6's as well, or a 5. (Simon and Garfunkel wasn't included because they are a duo more than a band, but they are a high 7, at least.)

Originally Posted by dParis

That's a good one. What delusional fool told you that?

The proof is in the pudding...

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Sound yes. Compositions, not so much. Some Lennon songs could be written 20 years from now and would still be masterpieces.

Yes, of course. Somehow i don't think the same will be said for these Lemonheads and Radiomuse acts...

Originally Posted by Tafmatch

This is correct. It's the compositions that made the Beatles so great and influential. Compare it to the Rolling Stones and it's a whole different league.

Let's not get carried away. The Beatles might be better, but the Stones produced an incredible number of fantastic songs.

[heycal]

Originally Posted by tricky

Velvet Underground should go on there, rating at least a 7.

It can't be understated how much the Beach Boys influenced British pop music. That influence was wider reaching and longer lasting than their legacy in the States; that may be part of the disconnect. The way the Who and Queen arrange and produce harmonies go back to the Beach Boys. The way the Beatles use minor keys to evoke unresolved melancholy behind lovelorn lyrics go back to the Beach Boys. Phil Spector and Brill Building popularized reverb as a way to convey foreground/background in pop, but the Beach Boys introduced the idea of miniaturist pop.

Pet Sounds had a fluency in arrangement that even eludes Revolver and Sgt Pepper. The production is forward thinking, but never treated as a special effect.

I enjoy the Velvet Underground myself, but I think we're talking a 4 or 5 at best.

The Beatles were more influential than the Beach Boys. Hell, there would be no Pet Sounds if it weren't for the Beatles. As for all this 'inside baseball' talk of "fluency of arrangement" and "miniarturist pop" stuff, who cares? It's the songs that ultimately matter, and Revolver def. Pet Sounds 6-0,6-2,6-1.

[tricky]

As for all this 'inside baseball' talk of "fluency of arrangement" and "miniarturist pop" stuff, who cares?

Once you have a "(insert band) is overrated" topic, you're in that kind of discussion. The details matter. It's the same thing when people engage "Who vs. Zeppelin vs. Stones" debates.

VU, I have as a 8 or 9.

Hell, there would be no Pet Sounds if it weren't for the Beatles.

There would have been no Sgt Pepper without Pet Sounds.

[heycal]

Originally Posted by tricky

VU, I have as a 8 or 9.

Not even close. The Velvet Underground has about half-a-dozen great and memorable songs -- and I'm being generous. Compare that to true "8" or "9" groups like the Beach Boys and Stones, who have dozens.

Originally Posted by tricky

There would have been no Sgt Pepper without Pet Sounds.

I'm not sure I believe that. I know Paul McCartney generously praises the album, but the Beatles were already doing amazing albums like Rubber Soul and Revolver. They didn't exactly need inspiration.

Brian Wilson, on the other hand, said he was directly influenced and inspired by Rubber Soul, and that's what led to Pet Sounds.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by heycal

The proof is in the pudding...

[rommil]

Keeps Tommy Bahama and used Corvette dealers in business

[heycal]

Originally Posted by r2473

I don't buy this midlife crisis nonsense -- or I've have been suffering one all my life. (Plus not one of the guys in this pic has the sense to wear skinny jeans). I just date the women I'm most attracted to and that I can snag: sometimes they are closer to my age (once older), and sometimes not so close.

Basically, single men seek the most desirable women, and that generally means younger. T'would be unnatural not to date the best, no?

Originally Posted by rommil

Keeps Tommy Bahama and used Corvette dealers in business

I love Tommy Bahama... have way more HM stuff though.

[tricky]

The Velvet Underground has about half-a-dozen great and memorable songs -- and I'm being generous.

Yeah, we'll have to disagree on that. The first time I heard "Velvet Underground & Nico", it was shocking to hear 11 songs that could plausibly have grandfathered 11 different genres of college/indie rock. Half of the songs on that album alone are classics to me. They're just not radio staples.

but the Beatles were already doing amazing albums like Rubber Soul and Revolver. They didn't exactly need inspiration

As you know, there was an artistic back exchange between Brian Wilson and Macca/Lennon. Rubber Soul inspired Brian to make a "total album." McCartney listened to Pet Sounds and changed how he used his bass playing to carry a song. Brian inspired Paul to go further in "pop symphony" direction. Borrowing music hall elements yet still playing by the pop playbook.

[BauerAlmeida]

Another One Bites The Dust is not even a Top 30 Queen song.

If you're going to judge a band, do it based on their best stuff, not by a mediocre 3 chord song. 90% of songs written by Mercury or May are better than that one. Deacon was never a great songwriter, although he did write some nice songs (Spread Your Wings, or Best Friend).

And what's wrong with Kansas?? They're a fantastic band.

[SoBad]

Originally Posted by heycal

Exactly. There's no shame in asking for help.

I concede that certain ingredients, like olives or mushrooms, might be better off imported. I went out to collect wild mushrooms in rural New Jersey once and I thought they were rather tasteless compared to their Eurasian counterparts. I am pleased that there are robust international trade/shipping operations in the city that enable our chefs to bake the best pizza in the world from the best possible ingredients.

[Mike Bulgakov]

Originally Posted by SoBad

I went out to collect wild mushrooms in rural New Jersey once and I thought they were rather tasteless compared to their Eurasian counterparts.

It is hard to find Amanita Muscaria mushrooms in rural New Jersey. Nevertheless, NYC has the best fly agaric pizza in the world.

[ninman]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Another One Bites The Dust is not even a Top 30 Queen song.

If you're going to judge a band, do it based on their best stuff, not by a mediocre 3 chord song. 90% of songs written by Mercury or May are better than that one. Deacon was never a great songwriter, although he did write some nice songs (Spread Your Wings, or Best Friend).

And what's wrong with Kansas?? They're a fantastic band.

It was one of their biggest hits though. The band didn't really like however, it barely made it on to the album. The only reason it was ever released as a single was because Michael Jackson suggested it.

But yeah, Mercury and May were the primary song writers for Queen. Songs like Bohemian Raphosdy and Somebody to Love, had enormous complexity to them.