|
|
Post by gr0undzer0 on Jul 1, 2008 18:39:03 GMT -5
who is the greatest rock band of all time ?
Mr. Bungle
The scene was shit, they scored a major label deal, had an incredible sense of humor, the players top to bottom all had a great musical vocabulary yet were willing to throw it all out the window for the sake of good fun, they could change musical genres 10 times within one song and always do it the best, Mike Patton is the greatest and most versatile rock singer ever, they were a shit hot live band always, the 3 official albums are all fantastic no filler anywhere, they shit on anyone whom happened to challenge them or dare to call them out, they could play any type of music at anytime anywhere.....they were BADASS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the best collection of talent this side of audioslave, but unlike those wankers Mr. Bungle could play any kind of music at anytime better then anyone else !
give me your best and maybe a reason why
|
|
|
|
Post by The Eyeball Kid on Jul 1, 2008 19:33:00 GMT -5
Belle and Sebastian, obviously. face melting cello action...
|
|
|
|
Post by gr0undzer0 on Jul 1, 2008 20:05:30 GMT -5
Belle and Sebastian, obviously. face melting cello action... okey doke......party on ! |
|
|
|
Post by Fields at Midnight on Jul 1, 2008 21:57:51 GMT -5
nirvana
[/thread]
|
|
|
|
Post by Twinkletoes on Jul 1, 2008 23:09:18 GMT -5
The Rolling Stones.
(Keith Richards alone could be the greatest rockstar ever)
I was going back and forth with The Ramones but, they called it quits.
|
|
|
|
Post by maidli2 on Jul 2, 2008 5:30:26 GMT -5
Ohhhh torturing question...
|
|
|
|
Post by maidli2 on Jul 2, 2008 5:32:24 GMT -5
Anyway, your blog needs new stuff   June missing |
|
|
|
Post by Montage on Jul 2, 2008 8:01:44 GMT -5
I'll have to get back to this one...
|
|
|
|
Post by Montage on Jul 2, 2008 8:21:42 GMT -5
I keep trying to think of something I can counter the Bungle arguement with, but I just can't come up with anything!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fields at Midnight on Jul 2, 2008 8:30:51 GMT -5
Anyway, your blog needs new stuff June missing well, I have been busy. I have not forgotten about it, quite the contrary. I have big plans for it. I am trying to get an interview for the relaunch, but so far, no such luck. It will happen very soon though. |
|
|
|
Post by Twinkletoes on Jul 2, 2008 9:22:28 GMT -5
Obviously, I took this thread very serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montage on Jul 2, 2008 9:26:19 GMT -5
How long before Mokkly says The Beatles?
|
|
|
|
Post by maidli2 on Jul 2, 2008 9:31:29 GMT -5
Obviously, I took this thread very serious. Me too ! but really it is difficult... it depends of how you're minded, how you feel stuff, etc... depends of the lyrics, depends of the musician... complexities... In my youth, i would say with non hesitation "Fields of the nephilim", but now.... really I went to so many gigs too, all great, (except some...) I can love metal as well as typical English sound just like Joy Division... i'm ODD That is my culture (am i right here Foz ? no cultivated ?!)The Cult was one of my fav too , but I changed, and Ian Astbury' band too... And, and, and... Well i dont know, in fact |
|
|
|
Post by maidli2 on Jul 2, 2008 9:31:59 GMT -5
How long before Mokkly says The Beatles? How long before Mokkly says Britney Spears ?! |
|
|
|
Post by Montage on Jul 2, 2008 9:33:26 GMT -5
True...
|
|
|
|
Post by ShotByTheBlues on Jul 2, 2008 12:58:24 GMT -5
Maybe the Yardbirds just due to their insane guitarist string (Beck, Clapton and Page!?)
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0 
|
Post by m on Jul 2, 2008 14:20:43 GMT -5
How long before Mokkly says The Beatles? The Beatles = the greatest POP band. Britney = one of the top 10 POP stars. The Beatles were a decent rock band too though.. their early covers, like Twist And Shout, totally stand the test of time and sound like the most powerful, distorted, full-on, dirty recordings of the era. but they never WROTE a whole lot of great rock music. most of their best moments (for me) are the mid period stuff that relies on brilliant arrangements and the breaking of rules in recording and writing. so.. as, for a Rock band.... well... it's an impossible question, really. do you judge it on live performance? recordings? musicianship? characters? i'd love to say one of the all time greats like The Rolling Stones (Exile On Main Street is surely on of the best rock n roll albums of all time..) and they have a great live show, great characters... great, classic, all time songs that are universally recognised - which is something a band like Mr Bungle are lacking. but does that just mean that the stones are diluted and playing for pop/mass appeal? like i say, how do you judge 'the greatest rock band ever'? what is the criteria? it's impossible. ...maybe The Who? most watchable band ever, with 4 unique members who performed and played with great individual nuance and combined with great chemistry... youtube.com/watch?v=b3mi-bKtDGA - this, for me, is one of THE best live performances in the recorded history of rock music. ive mentioned it before, but it is incredible. you have to watch the whole thing and see the interplay, the chemistry, how close things are to falling apart. but, quite a lot of their recorded stuff leaves me a bit cold, and maybe that lack of great albums stops them being the greatest rock band. then there's Nirvana... incendiary... exciting... utter passion beyond passion. but as musicians? good enough? enough material? Prince & The Revolution? not rock enough? Frank Zappa's band? full of amazing musicians... but they don't have that crazy 'rock n roll' element for me. it's all too knowing. neil young and crazy horse? like Nirvana in many ways... the much-maligned Pearl Jam... at peak, they take some beating... a good mix of passion, great songs, great performance... and great musicianship (dave abbruzesse is one of the greatest and least acknowledged drummers in the history of rock. seriously. he fucking MAKES Vs and Vitalogy tick) seriously, there are loads of contenders.. ooh, ooh... QOTSA with Homme, Lanegan, Oliveri , Van Leeuwen and Grohl? erm... i dont really have an answer to the question. just giving a few thoughts on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Montage on Jul 2, 2008 14:45:04 GMT -5
Frank Zappa's band? full of amazing musicians... but they don't have that crazy 'rock n roll' element for me. it's all too knowing. I think Zappa has some of the best arrangements around, and Be in my video is a wonderful vocal piece. |
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Jul 2, 2008 14:47:19 GMT -5
Frank Zappa's band? full of amazing musicians... but they don't have that crazy 'rock n roll' element for me. it's all too knowing. I think Zappa has some of the best arrangements around, and Be in my video is a wonderful vocal piece. yes. but i was trying to stay on topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Montage on Jul 2, 2008 14:51:11 GMT -5
I think the classification of what is 'rock' music has been so far stretched that it doesn't matter anyways.
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Jul 2, 2008 14:54:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Montage on Jul 2, 2008 15:01:27 GMT -5
You could learn to play real drums in the time it takes to figure out how to hit the plastic contraption with that game
|
|
m
New Recruit
Posts: 0
|
Post by m on Jul 2, 2008 15:07:07 GMT -5
those fucking guitar hero and rock band things used to be the bane of my life...
imagine working with 16-19yr olds who have struggled to engage in education, and are being given the opportunity to learn music/music tech...
now imagine they think they know how to play the guitar because they've played those games and they've got a little game on their mobile phone that lets them put together a drum loop and a synth sound....
.........
....
.
it is soul-destroying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montage on Jul 2, 2008 15:13:31 GMT -5
It's not like there's a lot of talent in pop music these days to begin with...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Eyeball Kid on Jul 2, 2008 20:58:45 GMT -5
QOTSA with Homme, Lanegan, Oliveri , Van Leeuwen and Grohl? in all seriousness i was actually going to maybe choose them. pretty killer line up, and they've got a great album to show for it, i.e. songs for the deaf. although grohl didn't play on "millionaire" and "go with the flow", and mark's only singing in "hangin' tree", "song for the deaf", "song for the dead", and "god is in the radio", and i don't think troy's on every song on the album, could be wrong though.... but still, good stuff. i'm also considering fugazi, because: a. instrumentally they're very tight, especially the rhythm section ( Canty and Lally). and the dual guitars of Picciotto and Mackaye are always ace. b. though they're not nearly as big as the rolling stones, the who, yardbirds, other big "classic rock" bands included, and even queens of the stone age, they never wanted to be. and for an independent band they were pretty popular anyways. c. they never made a bad album out of the 7 they made, and all of them range from solid to arguably perfect. and they made what might be their best album, "the argument", a year before going on "hiatus" (they're pretty much good as broken up now, though), showing that they never really lost in any creativity or motivation, even more than 12 years into their life as a band. d. their songs lyrically, although by no means overly eloquent or verbose, still pack a lot of meaning, and they very rarely delve into more simplistic political ideas in their songs like a whole lot of other punk bands did, have done, do, and will always do. e. and plus, the combination of the frontmen for minor threat and rites of spring is bound to be damn good. |
|
June missing
