Best English band

[moreblack]

Surprised to see Queen in second. They weren't all that big or important aside from one or two sports anthems...

[ADPT]

The Clash.

[bluesy]

It's between Radiohead and The Smiths.

[SunnyDRE]

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.

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.

I agree with this.

She Wants Revenge , a Interpol-knock off (And they admit it themselves), have released 2 albums that blow away anything Interpol has done since their debut,

[Demon Wolf]

Surprised to see Queen in second. They weren't all that big or important aside from one or two sports anthems...

Queen weren't all that big? They've sold over 300 million records! Some quick Wikipedia facts-

As of 2005, according to The Guinness Book of World Records, Queen albums have spent a total of 1,322 weeks or twenty-seven years on the United Kingdom album charts; more time than any other musical act including The Beatles and Elvis Presley.

One of rock's most successful, influential and popular acts, the band has released a total of eighteen number one albums, eighteen number one singles, and ten number one DVDs worldwide making them one of the world's best-selling music artists. The band is also the only group in which every member has composed more than one chart-topping single.

* 1999 - The band was voted the 2nd greatest band in music history.[93]

* 2005 - The band's performance at Live Aid is voted two times by a large selection of musicians and critics to be the greatest live show of all time.[32]

* 2007 - The band was voted the 'Best British Band Of All Time.'[94]

* 2008 - The band was voted the best rock band ever on the Internet site www.votenumber1.com. Millions of fans from over 40 countries voted.

[kevdo242]

Radiohead, if they keep things up for a few more albums. They've already written 2 of the best rock albums of the 90s.

[illusions]

WOW looking at that list ! didn't realise there were so many great bands.

[AzraelFenris]

sex pistols!

[Yamisonic]

Out of those, the Stones, but I like others better

[wasted]

In terms of Englishness, I'd say The Beatles on that list.

The Kinks are very English band.

Blur I would say are an English band.

The Stones, Zepp etc. seem like Americanized British bands - they don't really talk about English life - it's sex, drugs and the Blues.

That sort of happened to The Beatles but they started out very English type of band. A psychedelic tea party.

[Lithium]

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.

No, there's no such thing as a point of view on whether it's a poorly made film or not. I like it, but there's no secret that it's poorly made, objectively. Most peoples definition of a poorly made film, is bad acting, predictable plot and a script that a ten year old could have written. I don't think I've ever seen, let alone heard of, a movie critic review a movie in favor of what the mainstream will enjoy.

And what do you mean when you say "they have learned it at some college"? The doctors that save lives everyday have gone to college too; does that mean their education make them poor doctors? It's the exct same thing with movie critics, only less complicated.

Dark Side of the Moon is so great because it brought a sound with it that influenced a very large part of '70s music, and it managed to do that with a fairly original sound. There are many important albums I find boring too, but I still reckon their place in the history books, and why they are considered so great.

A carrot? Come on, you're overdoing it now. What I mean is: innovation is a factor you can look at, together with other factors, to draw a conclusion. Any of the aforementioned factors by themselves rarely or never make the music good.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Lithium

[LCG]

Unquestionably, The Beatles.

[P.A. Guns]

Definitely not the best, but Def Leppard is my upmost favorite. :krider:

[KingsPowerSteel]

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.

No, there's no such thing as a point of view on whether it's a poorly made film or not. I like it, but there's no secret that it's poorly made, objectively. Most peoples definition of a poorly made film, is bad acting, predictable plot and a script that a ten year old could have written. I don't think I've ever seen, let alone heard of, a movie critic review a movie in favor of what the mainstream will enjoy.

And what do you mean when you say "they have learned it at some college"? The doctors that save lives everyday have gone to college too; does that mean their education make them poor doctors? It's the exct same thing with movie critics, only less complicated.

Dark Side of the Moon is so great because it brought a sound with it that influenced a very large part of '70s music, and it managed to do that with a fairly original sound. There are many important albums I find boring too, but I still reckon their place in the history books, and why they are considered so great.

A carrot? Come on, you're overdoing it now. What I mean is: innovation is a factor you can look at, together with other factors, to draw a conclusion. Any of the aforementioned factors by themselves rarely or never make the music good.

Who decides if a movie is porly made? It's just that we all agree on certain aspects, though there is no actual ultimate rule what defines a movie as porly made. We think that a movie that has a predictable plot is porly made, though who says that this is actually the case. It's in our own view.

I didn't mean that these movie critics are bad, I meant they look at certain aspects they learned to look at, therefore they are looking at stuff that someone initially felt was important for a good movie.

I don't see why I would show appreciation to an album I just don't like. Quality in music is subjective, since it can't be scientifically meassured.

[Chris Axl]

Iron Maiden to me..

[illusions]

I would say the rolling stones, Bit more hard edged than the beatles who were good but a bit soft for my liking.

[PappyTron]

Certainly not the best, but T.Rex deserve to be on that list.