Greatest Rock Band of the Past...

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Oh man.

 

I be gigglin'.

[B. Brian Brunzell]

whooo, i'm finally cool. Best live album ever, huh?

IF by that you mean Live and Dangerous, then I agree with you. KISS' Alive! owns as well.

[Guest Brian]

The Jimi Hendrix Experience

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Rolling Stones

 

Cream was together for only a short time but they were the best 3 man group.

[Guest Matt Young]

I voted for the Doors. It goes like this:

 

1. The Doors

2. The Beatles

3. Led Zeppelin

4. Black Sabbath

 

I don't see why the Stones are so popular. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but the old topic is gone, so I'll say my piece here. Some idiot was trying to argue that The Doors were talentless, and the Stones were the best band ever. I know it's all opinion either way, but the fact is that the Doors created a whole new genre of music. The Stones just played simple, generic rock that anyone could do. Now as far as opinion... The Doors were amazing. Jim wrote lyrics that no one else can even compare to, and their sound was unlike any other. The Stones played a bunch of crappy songs that sounded the same for the most part, and that any 12 year old rookie guitarist could learn in a day. I know, I play guitar. They did have 4-5 good songs, but that was it. There's my (probably flame provoking, although it wasn't meant that way) opinion.

[Guest Brian]

Stones stuff all sounds the same with maybe the exception of Ruby Tuesday.

[Guest godthedog]

I voted for the Doors. It goes like this:

 

1. The Doors

2. The Beatles

3. Led Zeppelin

4. Black Sabbath

 

I don't see why the Stones are so popular. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but the old topic is gone, so I'll say my piece here. Some idiot was trying to argue that The Doors were talentless, and the Stones were the best band ever. I know it's all opinion either way, but the fact is that the Doors created a whole new genre of music. The Stones just played simple, generic rock that anyone could do. Now as far as opinion... The Doors were amazing. Jim wrote lyrics that no one else can even compare to, and their sound was unlike any other. The Stones played a bunch of crappy songs that sounded the same for the most part, and that any 12 year old rookie guitarist could learn in a day. I know, I play guitar. They did have 4-5 good songs, but that was it. There's my (probably flame provoking, although it wasn't meant that way) opinion.

not a flame, just a healthy discussion of opinion:

 

1) what new genre did the doors exactly create? i keep hearing that the doors were the first ones to do this psychedelic, disturbing, dark, strange sound, but the velvet underground was cranking out stuff that was darker, weirder and more drug induced a year before the doors' first album came out.

 

2) the stones' sound is a lot more complex than their singles from the radio would have you believe. 'exile on main street' had them exploring lots of new ground.

 

3) simple and easy to play isn't always worse anyway. again, i point to the velvet underground. i can take a random bum from downtown who's never played guitar before, and teach him 'heroin', cause it's only 2 chords played in one progression. and it's one of the greatest songs ever written. the only thing that really matters is talent. complexity is not an indicator of talent. many times, especially in rock music, simple is better.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

Hey, where is Aerosmith? I don't think the newer stuff should DQ the older stuff.

Aerosmith is still around kicking ass today, so No they shouldn't be on this list.

 

My pick from the past,..

 

Led Zeppelin

[Guest La Parka Es Mi Papa]

Don't see how it could be anyone other than the Stones.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Hey, where is Aerosmith? I don't think the newer stuff should DQ the older stuff.

Aerosmith is still around kicking ass today, so No they shouldn't be on this list.

If by 'kicking ass' you mean 'sucking hard,' then yes, they shouldn't be on this list.

 

It's safe to stop at Toys in the Attic in my eyes. And perhaps take the redux of "Walk This Way" as a sign that it's time to start listening to Run-DMC instead of Big Lips and the Gang.

[Metal Ed]

I still think Aerosmith's pretty righteous. You seen that video where Steven Tyler's got all them scarfs on his mic stand and he's, like, singin all close to the camera and then there's that hot chick and then Joe Perry plays a scorchin' solo? That's one of my favorite videos, man. Got me to bangin my head pretty good.

[Guest Banky]

Jimi Hendrix Experience

 

There's my vote.

 

I'd vote Sublime but they are too modern.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

Hey, where is Aerosmith? I don't think the newer stuff should DQ the older stuff.

Aerosmith is still around kicking ass today, so No they shouldn't be on this list.

If by 'kicking ass' you mean 'sucking hard,' then yes, they shouldn't be on this list.

 

Aerosmith is far from "sucking Hard."

 

They Still Kick Ass Live and that is what it's suppose to be about.

 

Their still better then 90% of the garbage that is out there now.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Aerosmith is far from "sucking Hard."

 

They Still Kick Ass Live and that is what it's suppose to be about.

 

Their still better then 90% of the garbage that is out there now.

 

Well, I'd actually wager that what it's supposed to be about is making good music. I also feel comfortable in saying that crap like "Jaded" and "Fly Away From Here" falls squarely into 90% of the garbage that's out there now.

 

Don't get me wrong. 70's Aerosmith I love, but I don't think we can still call them great actively creating musicians if all they're doing is crappy retreads and playing the old hits live. I will give them credit, though, in that they still seem to be playing all their own parts in concert as opposed to guys like the Stones and McCartney who have to roll in a pile of session musicians to work it out.

 

Then again, Aerosmith isn't 60 yet either.

[Guest redbaron51]

Rolling Stones should have quit a long time ago...

 

and for those seven people that wasted their votes on Led Zeppelin, tsk, tsk...

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

Metallca

[Guest Respect The 'Taker]

and for those seven people that wasted their votes on Led Zeppelin, tsk, tsk...

..and what exactly is wrong with Led Zeppelin?

[Guest Harry Hood]

da Floyd, da Dead, da Phish, da Beatles

[Guest redbaron51]

 

and for those seven people that wasted their votes on Led Zeppelin, tsk, tsk...

..and what exactly is wrong with Led Zeppelin?

over-rated.

[Guest Anglesault]

Hey, where is Aerosmith? I don't think the newer stuff should DQ the older stuff.

Aerosmith is still around kicking ass today, so No they shouldn't be on this list.

 

Oh, Of the past. ::slaps head::

[Guest godthedog]

 

and for those seven people that wasted their votes on Led Zeppelin, tsk, tsk...

..and what exactly is wrong with Led Zeppelin?

over-rated.

wow. now who could dispute with a sound argument like that?

[Guest saturnmark4life]

I missed the part where aerosmith still kicked ass. The new aerosmith stuff is roughly akin to being stabbed in the testicles with a fork by a hideous, large lipped skeleton wearing various drapes.

 

Edit: yes, KISS alive owns as well, alive II ain't too shabby either. I'd whine about them not being in there, but they were good BECAUSE they sucked, pretty much.

[Guest raptor]

If it's "of the past," shouldn't Def Leppard, AC/DC, Tom Petty/Heartbreakers, and The Rolling Stones all be disqualified? They're all making music today (difference in quality not withstanding)

[Guest Anglesault]

Def Leppard should be disqualified on the grounds of eternal suckage

[Guest saturnmark4life]

yeah, that's why i hate aerosmith's new shit, it sounds and looks like def leppard ALWAYS has. Though Leppard's new stuff is just, just oh GOD I can't speak of it.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Aerosmith is far from "sucking Hard."...

Their still better then 90% of the garbage that is out there now.

Picture yourself walking through the desert. It's hot, it's dry, it's lifeless, and the wispy winds blowing sand about sound a lot like Linkin Park. Then, you come to this big open sewer. Now, you've been walking for DAYS, and you're just dying of thirst, and you see half of a bottle of some liquid laying in this open trench of filth. On one hand, you're thinkin' "Man, I'm pretty thirsty, and that bottle of Aerosmith looks pretty good." The thing is, are you really desperate enough to dig around in there with a nearby stick in the hopes that it's going to be just as cool and refeshing as old Aerosmith? Because it ain't. There's still some Aerosmith in there, and yes, it is better than the two-pounder floating right next to it, but that doesn't mean it's tasty.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

If you guys just plain out don't like "New" Aerosmith, that's fine. I can live with that. But, there are people out there who do like Aerosmith still.

 

But my agrument is when people say they suck now. If you don't like the new songs, fine. But, they still kick ass in concert, still are making hits, and are still a huge Rock Act today, because of how good they are.

 

To say that Aerosmith in the 70's, early 80's were a better live act then they are now, or have been for the last 16 years now, is ridiculous.