Greatest Rock Band Of All Time???

Cyrusbales

Avenger
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
11,031
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I'm just trying to think of possible candidates, Beatles are more prog-rock/pop, so I can only think of tow bands with a possible claim to this title. Black sabbath are metal.

Led Zeppelin

The Rolling Stones


Can anyone think of any other possible contenders?
 
The Stones are more rock than The Beatles?
 
I would have said The Beatles but if we're talking about rock n' roll rock n' roll bands I'd have to say either The Who or Led Zeppelin.
 
5.jpg
 
Downhere said:
How about U2?

I'd say U2 are too comtemporary, not very influential, more of a flvour of the past few years, not in the same league as The rolling stones, 40 years is quite impressive!
 
U2 have been around since 1978 and popular almost as long as that.
 
KingOfDreams said:
U2 have been around since 1978 and popular almost as long as that.

Well stones been around for longer, and have produced many more 'classics'. If your go-ing by popularity, stones make more money, and sell-out bigger tours and venues. Also had more albums, more no.1 albums etc...
 
Queen

queen.jpg


They are the champions of the world.
 
Cyrusbales said:
Well stones been around for longer, and have produced many more 'classics'. If your go-ing by popularity, stones make more money, and sell-out bigger tours and venues. Also had more albums, more no.1 albums etc...

Well, yeah. They've been around for 40 years. You can't fault U2 on some of these things simply because they weren't a band yet. That's illogical. But don't get me wrong, I think the Stones are a better band.
 
KingOfDreams said:
Well, yeah. They've been around for 40 years. You can't fault U2 on some of these things simply because they weren't a band yet. That's illogical. But don't get me wrong, I think the Stones are a better band.

I can't see how U2 are anywhere near the status of the stones or led zeppelin, they're just well marketed. And they're musical abilites are.....well a little poor, they just use distortion pedals and stuff. Now Led Zeppelin, they could play instruments!
 
Edd Extraordinaire said:
I was at my friend's dorm getting drunk. How were they?
Pretty good, they did an acoustic version of "Skin and Bones". :up:
 
beatles0.jpg


such a cliche pick but the beatles. the way theyre music evolved and still remained at the high quality it was and how all of them went on to successful solo careers proves how great they were.

2. led zep

3. out from left field picks (but actually personal favs) radiohead and deftones
 
I'd say the rolling stones were more influential than the beatles, As the stones made Blues music mainstream in america, A lot of people hadn't heard of muddy waters until the stones cited him as a huge influence! So this also helped break down some racial inequalities in america. Not to mention free concerts and the drug culture explosion...
 
Cyrusbales said:
I can't see how U2 are anywhere near the status of the stones or led zeppelin, they're just well marketed. And they're musical abilites are.....well a little poor, they just use distortion pedals and stuff. Now Led Zeppelin, they could play instruments!

The Stones and Zeppelin are certainly great musicians, some of my favorites but don't sell The Edge in particular short. He has created a sound all his own. His tone is fantastic. Yes, his playing is simple but so is old blues...and that's some of the best music ever made.
 
Wilhelm-Scream said:
It has already been decided.




album10.jpg

They are ok, that is one weird photo :eek: tho. I remember the first time I heard them, it was in a metal club and I remember beeing drunk and kept asking the bartender what song they were playing, I remember asking him like 8 times over and over.

But I do prefer W.A.S.P now they rule :D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"