putting together the timeline of the world's best band

[quarter23cd]

Since I'm self-important like this, here is a timeline of my own "world's best band, imo" ranging from like 1987 to present. This was kind of cathartic to write out like this. I'm sure I missed a few.

 

--formative big-hair years-->

Poison

Def Leppard

Great White

Tesla

Guns n' Roses

Metallica

Aerosmith

--torn between grunge and hippiedom-->

Nirvana

Pearl Jam

Allman Bros.

Grateful Dead

--jamband-->

Blues Traveler

Widespread Panic

Dave Matthews Band

--indie/alt/alt-country-->

Pavement

Cracker/Camper Van

Flaming Lips

Uncle Tupelo

Wilco

Son Volt

--punk-->

Rancid

The Clash

Fugazi

--ska-->

The Specials

The Slackers

--back to indie-->

Wilco (again)

Flaming Lips (again)

Radiohead

--postpunk-->

Q & Not U

Dismemberment Plan

--indie-->

Wilco (again)

--classic rock (again)-->

Beatles

Neil Young

The Band

Bob Dylan

Grateful Dead

--jazz-->

[fortuneinmyhead]

where does Creedence Clearwater Revival fit into this?

(uh you know, 20 hits in the top 10 is not a small feat)

 

and as far as early 80s go, Journey was huge, i mean HUGE. ok stop laughing.

[Mr. Kinsley]

Here's how my timeline would look:

 

Beatles ---> Stones ---> Led Zeppelin ---> The Police (for a brief but shinning moment in early 80's) ---> U2 ---> Nirvana ---> Reclaimed by U2 after some brief claims to the crown by Pearl Jam for a year or 2 and Hootie & The Blowfish for about 3 or 4 days

 

Currently nobody has more cultural relevance than U2 and Radiohead. They seem sort of tied for the title now. After the heyday of '63 - '77, things got a lot murkier. The point about Jay Z was well stated; is the big rock band still relevant? Radiohead doesn't even have a label and puts their stuff out themselves. Wilco got canned for recording one of the best albums of the last 20 years.

 

Maybe it's just the record companies that are irrelevant?

[fortuneinmyhead]

Currently nobody has more cultural relevance than U2 and Radiohead.

 

 

huh?

 

relevance to who?

[Mr. Kinsley]

I said 'currently.' Of course The Beatles still to this day are a more relevant and influential band than anyone else. Do I like Wilco better than either Radiohead? Of course. During my conversations that turn to music on any given day, if Wilco comes up people have no idea who I'm talking about. A good band doesn't equal cultural relevance. Bono has lunch regularly with Bill Clinton. He's been to the White House to strike a deal with W - I won't speak out about Iraq if you'll start working on problems in Africa more.* If the Super Bowl could choose the biggest band in the world and not worry about repeat performances, you know U2 would be doing halftime every year. The field is so weak right now that they're stuck with Tom Petty. Radiohead isn't all that popular from a mainstream aspect, but they're the critical darlings that even casual observers know about from word of mouth, and might even get around to checking out someday.

 

Several people here have already stated more eloquently than I that this whole exercise is part who's best? who's popular? who are people paying attention to? Radiohead puts out an album for whatever price you want to pay and it makes the news worldwide. If Wilco did that, no one would give a crap. Not saying it's right, but it just is how it is.

 

I think one thing that's hard for us to understand around here is - most people aren't like us. They don't scavenge the internet for new music, they just take whatever scraps ClearChannel throws their way. For a lot of people, U2 is actually fairly cutting-edge and subversive. Scary, huh?

 

 

 

 

 

*I'm way oversimplifying their discussion, but when was the last time anyone in the government or mainstream media asked [fill in name of the lead singer from your favorite jam band here] about his/her views on world events, and had anyone other than the readers of Pitchfork pay attention?

[benjamin]

I'm a firm believer that one of the greatest bands ever was the motown backing band 'The Funk Brothers.' They are on more #1 hits than anyone... ever. Never got the cred they deserved. Not only did they perform, but actually wrote the music to the great motown songs as well.

Wikipedia Entry of the Funk Brothers

 

having played on more number-one records than The Beatles, Elvis, The Rolling Stones, and The Beach Boys combined

 

edit: some part in the back of my brain is screaming for AC/DC to be on that list too

[froggie]

> I said 'currently.' Of course The Beatles still to this day are a more relevant and influential band than anyone else.

 

most of Summerteeth sounds like Sgt Pepper and Magical mystery tour - influential indeed

[the_fliz1]

and Hootie & The Blowfish for about 3 or 4 days

 

 

Even mentioning "that band" in a thread about the best of all time, should be punishable by stoning, or at least tasing.

[bobbob1313]

what about The Beach Boys? Ionno, I always thought that the Beach Boys impact is still being felt whereas a Beatles reference doesn't hold up to time. Were the Beatles in actuality the best band, though? I always thought it was because Brian Wilson went crazy, Bob Dylan attempted suicide, and Jimi Hendrix was virtuoso. The Rolling Stones were more kitschy than anything for that time period, I thought. Everyone else just said "zomg The Beatles are pretty much the best ever" instead of trying to stand up for themselves like The Beach Boys.

 

Erroneous! Erroneous on all counts.

[mfwahl]

Not my cup of tea but I think globally the torch has passed to Coldplay

really, the kids love em but i haven't heard a song by them in a while

 

I would go Dylan->Beatles->Pink Floyd->Talking Heads->Michael Jackson(kind of a band cause he can dance and sing at the same time)->Pavement->Phish->Wilco

 

This is really mine own personal taste, but how can it not be. The late sixties alone, how can you choose a best?!

[dannygutters]

but don't get me wrong, there are a zillion other reasons why they (The Beatles) were and are the greatest band ever. personally, I think The Beach Boys have had more of an impact and Brian Wilson was in a gazillion ways more talented, but that's just my tastes.

 

I doubt your numbers here.

[Mr. Kinsley]

edit: some part in the back of my brain is screaming for AC/DC to be on that list too

That's the part that probably needs a CAT scan.

 

Even mentioning "that band" in a thread about the best of all time, should be punishable by stoning, or at least tasing.

I'm guessing the "don't tase me bro!" guy is a Hootie fan. THAT would be justice!

[tongue-tied]

Bono is everywhere, but U2 isn't all that relevent. They make kajillions on tour, but so does every popular eighties band that reunites. I don't think 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb' caused quite a stir as 'In Rainbows'. I don't know why, but Radiohead is the biggest band of today. Best band? No...well, probably to someone.

[Mr. Kinsley]

I guess in my own rambling way earlier I was trying to say that as of now U2 & Radiohead are tied/trading off. You take the title this year, we'll take it next year. Right now the title of biggest, best, most important and influential band in the world would have to be Radiohead. U2 has a new one in the works apparantly, so look for the title to switch back over to them soon.

[Analogman]

Bob Lefsetz has had a lot to say about Radiohead lately.

[MrRain422]

I nominate Barnes & Barnes.

[tongue-tied]

I guess in my own rambling way earlier I was trying to say that as of now U2 & Radiohead are tied/trading off. You take the title this year, we'll take it next year. Right now the title of biggest, best, most important and influential band in the world would have to be Radiohead. U2 has a new one in the works apparantly, so look for the title to switch back over to them soon.

 

Yeah, but I don't think so. U2's heyday is so 20th century. The 'best band' is too problematic to even really argue over this, but in the distant future, Radiohead will be remembered as a turn of the century band, while U2's past couple albums + anything else will only be known to U2 fans, U2 historically residing in the 80s/90s. Unless they release something earth-shaking, in which case I will eat my hat. This, of course, assumes that someone still cares about rock bands in the distant future.

[LouisvilleGreg]

Here's what I came up with:

'62-'67 Beatles

'68-'69 The Band

'69-'72 Stones

'73-'76 Led Zep

'77-'80 The Clash

'81-'83 The Police

'84-'87 U2

'87-'90 GN'R

'91-'94 Nirvana

'95-'01 Radiohead

'02-'04 Wilco

'05-curent: My Morning Jacket

[Hype Repellent]

Just bands, right? No solo artists?

 

Maybe it's my own personal bias or lack of historical perspective, but Pink Floyd? I know they were big, but I never think of them in the same manner as The Beatles, Stones, or even Zeppelin. Again, this is probably my own personal bias.

 

How about The Clash? Do they fit into this at all? Late 70's and early 80's, they were the only band that mattered - or something like that.

 

The Smiths? They occupied the same period as R.E.M and U2's early dominance (83 - 87) and were just as good (in my opinion, better).

 

 

Floyd sold a touch more records than Zep worldwide. Clash don't fit in, neither do the Smiths. Nirvana, like the Clash wasn't aroud long enough. You need masterpiece after masterpiece. I'd say U2 took over from Pink Floyd, which took over from Zep.

 

Greatest bands of all time, in terms of consistency, innovation, originality, and all around craft:

 

1. Beatles - all time sales leader in rock bands

2. Stones - 300 million +

3. Pink Floyd - 300 million +

4. Zeppelin -300 million +

5. The Who - 100 million +

 

 

The 90's spawned some cool bands, but none can even come close to that level. Lips, REM, Radiohead, all second tier.

[tongue-tied]

you list consistency, innovation, originality, and all around craft but then you list sales figures, which descend with the ranking. are these bands all tied for those four criteria? does Floyd beat out Zep because somebody scratched their record and had to buy a new one?

[Hype Repellent]

you list consistency, innovation, originality, and all around craft but then you list sales figures, which descend with the ranking. are these bands all tied for those four criteria? does Floyd beat out Zep because somebody scratched their record and had to buy a new one?

 

I gave them the nod due to the live pioneering.

[Sir Stewart]

This is a very important thing.

[Mr. Kinsley]

Yeah, but I don't think so. U2's heyday is so 20th century. The 'best band' is too problematic to even really argue over this, but in the distant future, Radiohead will be remembered as a turn of the century band, while U2's past couple albums + anything else will only be known to U2 fans, U2 historically residing in the 80s/90s. Unless they release something earth-shaking, in which case I will eat my hat. This, of course, assumes that someone still cares about rock bands in the distant future.

I can't really argue about this too much. I think you're right about Radiohead being the first Greatest Band of the 21st century. With that said, if both bands were to announce a tour where they would be in the same city on the same night, but whichever band sold the most tickets on their website would get to play and the other band had to sit it out, I bet 75% of the time U2 would win. I'd rather see Radiohead, but that's how it would go down.

[Hype Repellent]

Yeah, but I don't think so. U2's heyday is so 20th century. The 'best band' is too problematic to even really argue over this, but in the distant future, Radiohead will be remembered as a turn of the century band, while U2's past couple albums + anything else will only be known to U2 fans

 

 

I'd say the same applies to Radiohead. Their creative peak was Kid A, and the quality of the albums has been on the decline with Amnesiac, HTT and In Rainbows (which is talked about more for it's marketing scheme than the actual music - which sounds like Radiohead trying to sound like Radiohead).

 

The "greatest" bands have *big* ideas and run with them for many records. Radiohead had big ideas and ran with them for two records(Ok and Kid A), while producing a very good record in the Bends (which was fairly uneven, but still had that "it" factor). After Kid A, they kind of entered this quiet defeat era, and repeated themselves fairly often.

 

No band has really taken the reigns after 2000. Everyone thought the Strokes would, but that's a joke. The White Stripes? Too inconsistent. I'd say the current band with the best chance of "next big thing" is Arcade Fire. But not even that's gauranteed. You need great record after great record after great record. You need songs like "Comfortably Numb", "Hey Jude" and "Kashmir". No one's writing them right now.

[tongue-tied]

You need great record after great record after great record. You need songs like "Comfortably Numb", "Hey Jude" and "Kashmir". No one's writing them right now.

 

Good!