Worst band ever: REM or Chili Peppers?

[adamX012]

I will go over the Hudson river to celebrate the New Year!

Yes, Red, chilli and pepper because I love spicy food

Rock and Roll~

[SoBad]

Great, I pledge to eat all kimchi on w32st to celebrate thanksgiving. And then I can go into a sauna and into a coma with a good feeling and clear conscience.

[adamX012]

Nice teeth cleaning today! Doctor says no more spicy food while watching the gangnam style dance

Maybe, I changed my mind, OP. R.E.M this time

[SoBad]

To call things their names, frankly, Queen was a spoiled bunch of silver-spoon-mouthed degenerates who barely succeeded with one song in a weak era.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Ok Computer is a masterpiece. Maybe the best album of the 90's.

Among a lot of critics, it's an argument between OK Computer, Nevermind, and Loveless (which gets the "Pet Sounds.") This is one of the innate problems with decade debates. A record in 1991 will often be deemed "more important" than one in 1997, even though the 10 years markers are still pretty arbitrary. People heard Nevermind and thought, "hey I could do that." Bands heard OK Computer and considered calling it a day.

Then you have a separate debate between Kid A and OK Computer. Kid A was selected as greatest album of the 00s in various publications. And it could be argued that The Bends was more influential than OK Computer and Kid A.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Meatloaf is off his loaf.

meatloaf eats way too much loaf...hence the corpulence.

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Originally Posted by tricky

People heard Nevermind and thought, "hey I could do that." Bands heard OK Computer and considered calling it a day..

yes, exactly..

[dParis]

The Bends>OK Computer

Both great albums.

[Power Player]

How do you define best? Personal taste or actual record sales? Most people who do this stuff for a living lean on sales #s followed by albums of critical acclaim that influenced other albums.

Using that category (which is the best possible way - far better than the layman's argument) Queen is top 10 of all time in record sales and Pet Sounds is the #2 greatest record of all time according to the rolling stone list (list was created by this laundry list of successful artists/ music executives at the following link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/li...#ixzz2CmOP3jdV


Now ask yourself - how do you quantify an opinion better than anyone on that list? The answer is that you probably do not without a resume in the industry. A humbling fact - Brittney Spears is on that list and knows far more about music than any layman, who could never pick a producer, create a proper song list on an album or allocate marketing funds for promo. This is why musical debates are a total waste of time and the main person here who thinks his taste is superior ( clue - the OP ) needs to admit to trolling or simply sit down before shaming himself any further.

excellent troll thread BTW. Well done. This is a heycal staple. At least for someone who peruses this battlefield, maybe they will at least see some good, real info on art instead of being bashed in the face by one person's unqualified opinion and ears.

[heycal]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Queen in interpretation and songwriting is miles ahead of Neil Young. Neil Young was a great LYRICIST but nothing special as a songwriter.

"Somebody to Love" is a fantastic song, ALMOST as good as "Boh Rap". The same goes for "March of the Black Queen", "Innuendo" and "Millonaire Waltz". Do you think those aren't great??

Very complex, full of arrangements and a magnificent interpretation. Queen had 3 great vocalists (one was out of this world), while some bands barely have one.

And first you say you only heard ONE Kansas song, but then yoy go on and say Neil has twice as many good songs as them...How can you know if you never listened to them??

You seem to believe HITS are the best songs from their any band, and they're not. Hits are a success because they're more commercial and easy-listening for the public. Kansas has dozens of great songs. Dust In The Wind, The Wall, Point Of Know Return, Rainmaker, Miracles Out Of Nowhere, The Pinnacle, etc.

I realize that hits aren't often the best songs a band has done. However, the good stuff usually makes itself known somehow, and the songs from Queen and Kansas have not done so. As is often the case with these lesser bands, their one or two hits ARE their best efforts.

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

accidental irony 101

you would find plenty of music critics who would agree, actually..

Really? 20-something critics with one or two contrarian older types thrown in?

Believe me, son, in decades to come, absolutely no one will be talking about Radio Muse or Lemon Head or Ok Cupid or whoever. I understand you probably like them because you grew up with them -- hell, I like "The Night the Lights went out in Georgia" because I grew up with it -- but these bands are nowhere near in league with the Stones and Beatles.

Originally Posted by SoBad

To call things their names, frankly, Queen was a spoiled bunch of silver-spoon-mouthed degenerates who barely succeeded with one song in a weak era.

Not far off. Mercury could sing like hell, and they did manage to eek out a couple of slams here and there, but they aren't among the truly great.

Originally Posted by tricky

Among a lot of critics, it's an argument between OK Computer, Nevermind, and Loveless (which gets the "Pet Sounds.") This is one of the innate problems with decade debates. A record in 1991 will often be deemed "more important" than one in 1997, even though the 10 years markers are still pretty arbitrary. People heard Nevermind and thought, "hey I could do that." Bands heard OK Computer and considered calling it a day.

Then you have a separate debate between Kid A and OK Computer. Kid A was selected as greatest album of the 00s in various publications. And it could be argued that The Bends was more influential than OK Computer and Kid A.

Are you speaking English?

Originally Posted by Power Player

How do you define best? Personal taste or actual record sales? Most people who do this stuff for a living lean on sales #s followed by albums of critical acclaim that influenced other albums.

Using that category (which is the best possible way - far better than the layman's argument)

Sales?? God, no. That's a horrible way. If we used sales to define greatness, we'd be talking about horrifying bands like AC/DC. Sales aren't a reliable indicator at all.

Originally Posted by Power Player

. This is why musical debates are a total waste of time and the main person here who thinks his taste is superior ( clue - the OP ) needs to admit to trolling or simply sit down before shaming himself any further.

I really don't understand what the controversy is. Me stating that the Beatles and Stones are two best rock bands ever is pretty much stating the obvious. Reading some of the replies here, it's as if I said "Roger Federer and Rod Laver are two best players ever", and a bunch of guys started howling "What? What about Leyton Hewitt?? Or Jim Courier?? Hello! Haven't you ever heard of Yannick Noah???"

[Power Player]

"Sales?? God, no. That's a horrible way. If we used sales to define greatness, we'd be talking about horrifying bands like AC/DC. Sales aren't a reliable indicator at all."

Annnnnnd that's all folks. Hope it cements my point for anyone still reading this laugher.

[heycal]

Originally Posted by Power Player

"Sales?? God, no. That's a horrible way. If we used sales to define greatness, we'd be talking about horrifying bands like AC/DC. Sales aren't a reliable indicator at all."

Annnnnnd that's all folks. Hope it cements my point for anyone still reading this laugher.

I hope you're not implying that you like AC/DC... Because that would pretty much eliminate you as a serious contributor to this thread.

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Heycal just continues to show how hopelessly out of his depth he is in this discussion..

While I agree that sales is a terrible measure, I can't come at AC/DC being 'horrifying'. Sure, they are pretty 'samey', but they have still given the world some of the most instantly recognizable riffs and hooks in history. ('Back in Black', anyone?)

For the record, I'm 46, a tennis coach (which has no relevance here) and a professional musician (which kind of does)

There is just nothing interesting about the Beatles for me, sorry. I don't hate them, or even dislike them, but they are just so bland. By contrast, REM and RHCP do some really unusual and honest things in terms of song structure and lyrical content.
As for Radiohead's OK Computer, that is a whole different level of sophistication to the point where any comparison to something like Rubber Soul or Revolver is just meaningless.

But this will all go right over Heycal's head, he has made up his mind, much like a birther who is totally convinced the Prez was born in Kenya (or whatever the idiotic premise of that movement of morons is), no amount of hard physical evidence will have any effect.



oh, PP, I bought one of the Taylor Fall Limiteds! A GAce FLTD 2012
Happy days!

[ninman]

Sales is not a horrible indicator at all. It shouldn't be the sole indicator, but to say it's bad is pretty stupid. Queen sold over 300 million records world wide, the Bee Gees have sold over 200 million, The Beach Boys about 50 million. All great bands.

I personally think that if The Beach Boys had chosen different subject matter, i.e. not surfing, to write about, they probably would have done a lot better sales wise. Their biggest problem though, was alienating their entire fan base by releasing Smiley Smile, which sucked, after cancelling Smile.

They never really recovered after that, despite recording some really decent albums, and songs, like the Sunflower album (which did horribly). However, people just weren't interested in The Beach Boys post 1967, which I think is very sad. Personally, I think they were one of these most under appreciated and under rated bands of the 70's.

[Power Player]

Sales is a great indicator when you are having the best ever or worst ever type of arguments that people like to have. It is really a subjective argument so not only did i post that i also posted the top 500 list. If you look at the people who contributed to that list, it is very impressive. I know some of them personally and they made millions telling the world what a great band or hit was when the songs were just demos and the bands were just babies.

Enjoy the taylor!

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Really, Rolling Stone? I had no idea anybody even read it anymore, let alone took it the least bit seriously!

I have read the list of voters, an d I take your point, but don't you think it is a bit more than a coincidence that their top ten lists are always full of music from a 5 year period between 1967 and 1972?

I mean, look at their guitarists list and tell me how Keith Richard is in the top 5 and Eric Johnson doesn't exist?

[heycal]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

While I agree that sales is a terrible measure, I can't come at AC/DC being 'horrifying'. Sure, they are pretty 'samey', but they have still given the world some of the most instantly recognizable riffs and hooks in history. ('Back in Black', anyone?)

But this will all go right over Heycal's head!

Wait, let me get this straight: You're one trumpeting AC/DC and talking about how groups like Radiohead and the Chili Peppers are better than the Beatles and the Stones, and I'm the guy whose in over his head and out of his depth?

Once again, there is really little debate about this in serious circles. Only contrarians or imbeciles would argue that the Beatles and Stones aren't the cream of the crop. Which group do you fall into?

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

I have read the list of voters, an d I take your point, but don't you think it is a bit more than a coincidence that their top ten lists are always full of music from a 5 year period between 1967 and 1972?

Perhaps because it's well-known that that era produced the best music? Doesn't seem surprising to me.

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Originally Posted by heycal

Wait, let me get this straight: You're one trumpeting AC/DC and talking about how groups like Radiohead and the Chili Peppers are better than the Beatles and the Stones, and I'm the guy whose in over his head and out of his depth?

Once again, there is really little debate about this in serious circles. Only contrarians or imbeciles would argue that the Beatles and Stones aren't the cream of the crop. Which group do you fall into?



Perhaps because it's well-known that that era produced the best music? Doesn't seem surprising to me.

oh my lord, you're thick, aren't you? I am not 'trumpeting' AC/DC at all, just pointing out they have given the world some memorable riffs and don't deserve 'horrific' status. I don't own a single AC/DC album, personally, not my taste at all.

I just stated I am bored by the Beatles and find Radiohead more interesting.

Your original premise is so ludicrous as to be almost forgotten, but I note how you are happy to bow to Rolling Stone on The Beatles while conveniently ignoring the presence of both RHCP and REM on their list of all time greatest albums..

you can't have it both ways...

in summary, my preference for Radiohead is a question of taste, but your premise of REM and RHCP as the worst bands of all time is a question of sheer stupidity.

there is really little debate about this in serious circles, as you might say...

[BauerAlmeida]

AC/DC is an ok band. Nothing special, and there are a lot of bands who are better for sure. But they are not bad.

And sales is not and indicator. There are loads of band who sell a lot and are pure crap. And some great artist are not popular at all.

[heycal]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

oh my lord, you're thick, aren't you? I am not 'trumpeting' AC/DC at all, just pointing out they have given the world some memorable riffs and don't deserve 'horrific' status. I don't own a single AC/DC album, personally, not my taste at all.

in summary, my preference for Radiohead is a question of taste, but your premise of REM and RHCP as the worst bands of all time is a question of sheer stupidity.

there is really little debate about this in serious circles, as you might say...

AC/DC hasn't "given the world" anything. Instead they feel inflicted misery and heartache to all who have been unwillingly unsubjected to their nighmarish reign of terror. They are a blight upon humanity.

If you paid attention to the thread, you'd realize the REM and RHCP designations as "worst ever" are limited in scope.

As for preferring Radioneck to the Beatles, that's fine. I personally listened to way more Doors and other bands than I did the Beatles or Stones. But I wouldn't be stupid enough not to acknowledge that they are clearly and obviously the two greatest bands ever.