Best English band

[Midnight Rambler]

It has to be the beatles.

[Ant]

If I said who I want to say I'd be forever discredited on this forum! .

I'll just go with Zepp.

[GNRs00ks]

I'd have to say the Beatles.

[Songbird]

Difficult?? Couldn't have been any easier. Beatles.

[ssiscool]

Queen

[Projected]

With all my love to the Beatles, Pink Floyd pwns basically everything that ever was and ever will be, probably.

[Lithium]

Obviously The Beatles.

[Leigh-Rok!]

From the list, it's Iron Maiden for me. That's only because I'm really into their shit, and not into the others.

[carsonskitz]

Out of those: Queen or The Clash, voted Queen.

Other: Oasis or Enter Shikari.

Your vote just lost all meaning.

lol enter shikari....

[swlabr]

Obviously The Beatles.

[carsonskitz]

dire straits worth definate mention

[Lithium]

It's funny how people forget the difference between "best" and "favourite".

[GivenToFly]

There is no difference. It's entirely subjective, whether you like it or not.

[Lithium]

No, it isn't. There are certain factors you can look at to draw a conclusion - originality, impact, influence, lyrical quality, innovation, and so on.

[SunnyDRE]

Joy Division = Smiths = Sunny Day Real Estate (The forefathers of all music made after 95)

[KingsPowerSteel]

Out of them Iron Maiden.

Though there would be Saxon, Judas Priest, Rainbow, etc.

[KingsPowerSteel]

It's funny how people forget the difference between "best" and "favourite".

There is no difference. How can you say: "Song A is better than song B, but I like song B better"? That doesn't make any sense.

Innovation, impact or influence don't have anything to do with the musical quality. The quality of the music is solely based on wheter you like it or not instead of how many other people like a certain song or band, or how many of them want to play similar music.

How can a song be the best but you not be your personal favourite? And who's to say someone is the best? Basically it's just who is more mainstream against who is your personal favourite.

[Lithium]

It's funny how people forget the difference between "best" and "favourite".

There is no difference. How can you say: "Song A is better than song B, but I like song B better"? That doesn't make any sense.

Innovation, impact or influence don't have anything to do with the musical quality. The quality of the music is solely based on wheter you like it or not instead of how many other people like a certain song or band, or how many of them want to play similar music.

How can a song be the best but you not be your personal favourite? And who's to say someone is the best? Basically it's just who is more mainstream against who is your personal favourite.

Ok, take the film Street Fighter. I know that the film is fucking horribly made - the script is ridiculous and the acting even more so; and that makes it a bad film. But I like it regardless. Personal preference is completely irrelevant to the quality of things. Innovation and originality, etc. are what, for example, music critics have in mind when they review an album. You didn't think they were judging albums based on personal preference, did you?

I don't believe that there is a single song that is considered worldwide as the best, but there's definitely songs that are better than other songs. A song can be the best and not my personal favourite because, for instance, the lyrics are good, the sound of the song is original, but my ears don't like it. It's still good regardless of what my ears tell my brain. And what does mainstream have to do with anything?

[Shuffle]

I kind of agree with Lithium, there is a difference between "personal favourite" and "best" but then again there's no objective ranking of what is best so personal preference will still play a part in what you consider best...

[Pico]

Joy Division = Smiths = Sunny Day Real Estate (The forefathers of all music made after 95)

What.

Beatles, btw. Anywhere, anytime.

[GivenToFly]

No, it isn't. There are certain factors you can look at to draw a conclusion - originality, impact, influence, lyrical quality, innovation, and so on.

But whatever factor you take into account, it can ultimately be reduced to something that's either subjective or irrelevant.

It's art man, it's subjective by definition.

[Lithium]

No, it isn't. There are certain factors you can look at to draw a conclusion - originality, impact, influence, lyrical quality, innovation, and so on.

But whatever factor you take into account, it can ultimately be reduced to something that's either subjective or irrelevant.

It's art man, it's subjective by definition.

Influence, for example, is never subjective. The influence is there whether you agree with it or not; it is fact, not an opinion. And none of the factors I mentioned are irrelevant.

[GivenToFly]

No, it isn't. There are certain factors you can look at to draw a conclusion - originality, impact, influence, lyrical quality, innovation, and so on.

But whatever factor you take into account, it can ultimately be reduced to something that's either subjective or irrelevant.

It's art man, it's subjective by definition.

Influence, for example, is never subjective. The influence is there whether you agree with it or not; it is fact, not an opinion.

It falls under the second category. What does influence mean? That some people liked some guy's songs enough to make music of their own that sounds like them.

Well, I don't know about you, but when I listen to a song, I listen to it from my point of view. Not from the POV of the musicians that may or may not have been influenced by it.

As for originality, that doesn't appear to be synonymous with quality either. That would mean that the guy who invented and made the first cuckoo clock is the best cuckoo clock maker in history. Using the same logic, if an act introduces something new in music (i.e. is original) that doesn't directly make them the best at doing that particular thing. Nothing guarantees that another act will not come and do it as well or better. It's only up to each listener to decide which version they like better.

This can be extended to influence as well. That is because influence implicates originality and enough appeal (subjective to each individual; it touches each person separately, otherwise it would be absolute; and there was never any universally embraced change) to generate a movement that follows a certain revolution.

I may be wrong but I see impact/influence more like a collection of minds being directly affected than a phenomenon specific to the effect of the music, thus it being subjective, or, if you're not part of the aforementioned 'collection', well, irrelevant.

Just my opinion, of course.

[feconroses]

Stones!

[KingsPowerSteel]

Ok, take the film Street Fighter. I know that the film is fucking horribly made - the script is ridiculous and the acting even more so; and that makes it a bad film. But I like it regardless. Personal preference is completely irrelevant to the quality of things. Innovation and originality, etc. are what, for example, music critics have in mind when they review an album. You didn't think they were judging albums based on personal preference, did you?

I don't believe that there is a single song that is considered worldwide as the best, but there's definitely songs that are better than other songs. A song can be the best and not my personal favourite because, for instance, the lyrics are good, the sound of the song is original, but my ears don't like it. It's still good regardless of what my ears tell my brain. And what does mainstream have to do with anything?

But that means, in YOUR point of view, Street Fighter is a good movie. I mean, the question still is, who defines that a script is ridiculous or not? There's no absolute rule given by physics or whatever that says movie lines are ridiculous if...That means, already just the thought of something being ridicolous is subjective.

Movie critics usually base movies on the way the mainstream will like it, or on the way they learned it at some college. But then again, the stuff they learned there was said by some people, which makes this subjective again, since there is no ultimate rule to what is good and what is not.

Let's say there's some "brilliant" song or album, like Dark Side Of The Moon. In my opinion it is boring and shallow. Do I still think it's one of the best ever? No. Since I can't see why anyone would say it's good, so to me it's more or less a bad or average album, because there is no defined ruled that is not created by people themselves on which I can see that it would be good. But then someone else comes and likes the album, because of their preferences. So he thinks, it's one of the best. But that is all in his or in my opinion.

And innovation has nothing to do with the quality of the sound. If I come and start playing my guitar with with a carrott instead of a guitar pick, does that mean I'm making good sound, just because of the fact I'm being creative and innovative? I really don't think so.