Rock Historian Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Top 100 Rock Bands........link below http://www.avrev.com/top-100-bands-of-all-time/top-10-rock-bands/index.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesehead1204 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 I've seen this list before, and I obviously love the winner! I also like how they considered a multitude of different areas, including talent, live shows, etc. However, the list does have some flaws, such The Rolling Stones at #20 and Radiohead at #90 (too low) as well as Metallica at #8 and Rush at #14 (too high). Still an interesting list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted October 13, 2010 Author Share Posted October 13, 2010 I've seen this list before, and I obviously love the winner! I also like how they considered a multitude of different areas, including talent, live shows, etc. However, the list does have some flaws, such The Rolling Stones at #20 and Radiohead at #90 (too low) as well as Metallica at #8 and Rush at #14 (too high). Still an interesting list. I guess it depends on taste really..I love the winner too, but I personally cant stand the Rolling Stones, so I disagree with you there and Rush should have been higher..theres not a three piece band like them on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Floyd at #3. I can dig it. I like that they ranked high in innovation and live performance, but I thought they should have been higher in technical ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermedalist Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 To me trhe top three I have no problem with but would put the Stones and the Who ahead of Pink Floyd. Think the Eagles belong right about at 5,6, or 7 and notice the Beach Boys are pretty high. That I like. I think technically Pink Floyd are no doubt above the Stones. But taking all things into account, they are not bigger in the grand scheme of thinigs. Seems like with the Stones and the Who you either love them or hate them. Hendrix is way too high on this list. How many good songs did he have compared to the top bands. Its a joke how many great songs the Beatles had over him. Joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 What a load of Bullshit? Regards, Danny PS, I would have said a load of Bollocks but I was unable to remember how to spell it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyzoso Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 i love it when i see LZ on top of the lists or charts it makes me a proud fan i'm also glad Pink Floyd is on top their one of my favorite band of all time. I love the Rolling Stones but their fans makes me not like them they always dissing other bands especially Zeppelin they got a huge ego sometimes they need to shut the f**k up and have a seat. They get so pressed when other bands outbeat The Stones so what i don't mind if people put Queen, The Stones, or The Beatles ahead of Zeppelin at the end of the day it's all people opinion and decisions it's no such thing who's the best band in history because everyone got a different answer to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzzoso Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 Of course I am glad to see Led Zeppelin in the number one slot, however, I am a bit mystified when both Iron Maiden (#93) and Judas Priest (#95) are ranked near the bottom of a so-called list of the top 100 rock bands. Especially when bands like Earth, Wind and Fire (#18), Bon Jovi (#42), Dixie Chicks (#43), Talking Heads (#46), No Doubt (#56), Orbital(?)(#60), REM (#74), Underworld(?)(#81) and Thievery Corporation(?)(#82) make it before the likes of greats such as Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. I realized that these lists and/or polls are just that: list and polls conducted by someone somewhere with obvious biases and different tastes in Rock and Roll than my own. That I can respect. What I have trouble with is that some of the bands I listed (and many others I did not) are not even considered Rock (and Roll) bands or Rock music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 It appears the judges award lower technical ability scores for bands that scored low in the innovation category. Interesting system but flawed considering bands with extremely technical members are scored so low for technical ability. Judas Priest and Kansas less technical than Bob Marley, can't make sense of that. As always a fun read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 The winner is cool but any list that places Van Halen so high and the Rolling Stones so low must have been doing something wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalZone Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 That criteria is still based on subjective analysis. So however they arrive at a tiered list, it boils down to One Man's trash is another Man's treasure. Unless you base a list on numbers of units sold or numbers of attendees at concerts, there is no such thing as definitive list. I'm always baffled at people who put any stock in something like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalZone Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 There are a couple of methods used that incorporate numbers in the rankings. But much of it is judged. That is, subjective. One judge loves Van Halen, the other loves The Rolling Stones. Who's to say who's best? Are YOU going to allow someone else's rankings determine your list too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermedalist Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 That criteria is still based on subjective analysis. So however they arrive at a tiered list, it boils down to One Man's trash is another Man's treasure. Unless you base a list on numbers of units sold or numbers of attendees at concerts, there is no such thing as definitive list. I'm always baffled at people who put any stock in something like this. There cant be a difinitive list of course. There is a handfull of bands that are always going to be ranked at the top and deservedly so. Bands like Zeppelin, the Beatles and such are not fly by night bands that came out with a hit or two and faded off into the sunset. They have surviived the test of time. To me, that is one very important criteria. Time. If you are still being heard 4 decades later, you did something right. Now there are many on that list that fit that criteria. It is subjective to a degree. But the guy complaining about Iron Maiden or Priest cannot expect them to be anywhere near Led zeppelin in any rankings. It does mean something selling out large venues and having gold record awards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzzoso Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 There cant be a difinitive list of course. There is a handfull of bands that are always going to be ranked at the top and deservedly so. Bands like Zeppelin, the Beatles and such are not fly by night bands that came out with a hit or two and faded off into the sunset. They have surviived the test of time. To me, that is one very important criteria. Time. If you are still being heard 4 decades later, you did something right. Now there are many on that list that fit that criteria. It is subjective to a degree. But the guy complaining about Iron Maiden or Priest cannot expect them to be anywhere near Led zeppelin in any rankings. It does mean something selling out large venues and having gold record awards. First of all: It is obvious that you read my post (#8) but where do you get that I was "complaining" as you put it, about Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. I wrote that I was a bit "mystified" about the very low rankings (near the end and in the 90's) of both Iron Maiden and Judas Priest when compared to some of the other "Rock" bands listed. As much as I Love Iron Maiden and Judas Priest, I also did not write anywhere in my reply that I "expect them to be anywhere near Led Zeppelin in any ranking". It is like you are trying to put words that I never said (wrote) into my mouth (reply). Remember, this topic is titled Top 100 Rock Bands, not top 100 Bands. With that being said (written), how the Dixie Chicks can rank at #43 and Iron Maiden at #93 and Judas Priest at #95 on a list that is supposed to be about Rock Bands is way beyond me. I am in no way complaining, however, I AM Perplexed about that. Oh, and by the way, Both Iron Maiden and Judas Priest Have sold out large venues in their careers and Both have not only Gold records but also Platinum records as well. Probably more than alot of these "Bands" that made this list. Second and lastly, I implied that I realize that these list and or polls are just that, conducted by whoever(?) or whatever and will have obvious biases and tastes and opinions that I may or may not share. The ranking of Led Zeppelin at #1 I obviously agree with, the ranking of Iron Maiden and Judas Priest I obviously do not agree with. Of course, not everyone agrees with everyone. This Great Led Zeppelin forum proves just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 What a load of Bullshit? Regards, Danny PS, I would have said a load of Bollocks but I was unable to remember how to spell it. Yeah pretty much. Lists usually are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesehead1204 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 I have noticed a few things that bother me with Led Zeppelin's ratings. First of, Zeppelin was the most talented band ever and should have 99 on technical ability. Hendrix might be a slightly better guitarist than Page, but he is no where near the level of singer Plant was. Also, Bohnam and JPJ are miles better than The Jimi Hendrix Experience rhythm section. Also, Zeppelin's innovation should be higher than Van Halen's; Zeppelin helped establish a lot of what Van Halen did in their music. Finally, I think Zeppelin should be the lone band in second in songwiting. If you ask me, Zeppelin's songwiting was far and away better than Hendrix or The Eagles, and only The Beatles can really compete. Obviously, a ranking can't please everyone, but I think a few of these are no brainers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi_Zep_Fan87 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) Here is my take on the list : It's really cool that Zep are #1! I certainly dig that! Now, how in the world have "The Beegees" been ranked ahead of "The Rolling Stones"? Also, don't tell me "The Beach Boys" are better than "The Who"? And how the fuck is such a lousy band like "No Doubt" even figuring on this list and they are better than "Traffic"?! Oh c'mon! Not to mention the damn "Black Eyed Peas"! What a load of shit! I usually don't tend to get into the "this band rocks, that band sucks debate", but this was just too tempting to pass up! Edited October 19, 2010 by Kiwi_Zep_Fan87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 No Doubt are a great band. Tragic Kingdom and Rock Steady are two of my favorite albums. I also loved their version of Talk Talk's "It's My Life". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermedalist Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Here is my take on the list : It's really cool that Zep are #1! I certainly dig that! Now, how in the world have "The Beegees" been ranked ahead of "The Rolling Stones"? Also, don't tell me "The Beach Boys" are better than "The Who"? And how the fuck is such a lousy band like "No Doubt" even figuring on this list and they are better than "Traffic"?! Oh c'mon! Not to mention the damn "Black Eyed Peas"! What a load of shit! I usually don't tend to get into the "this band rocks, that band sucks debate", but this was just too tempting to pass up! I love the Who and the Beach Boys both. But I agree. The Who are bigger and have to be ranked far higher. Bee Gees I like too, but once again you are right, no way as big as the Rolling Stones. The Bee Gees really had two different eras. The old stuff ,like the Mining Disaster song and I Started a Joke type of songs. And then the disco stuff. The disco was good. Shoot me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boylollipop Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 It´s a very chlidish list. Led Zeppelin were a great live band, but they only score 48 points and Deep Purple only 36. The Police score 91 in technical ability and Cream 87 and Deep Purple a mere 77! LMFAO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 No doubt that despite their scoring system opinion still makes the biggest difference, but again its not supposed to be definitive I see these things as entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.