Top 20 Best Rock Bands of all Time

Prove Me Wrong:
1. Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention
2. The Doors
3. The Jimi Hendrix Experience
4. Grateful Dead
5. SWANS
6. The Beatles
7. Nirvana
8. Soft Machine
9. Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band
10. Rush
11. The Red Hot Chili Peppers
12. The Smashing Pumpkins
13. The Smiths
14. Royal Trux
15. The Byrds
16. Jefferson Airplane
17. Faust
18. King Crimson
19. Minutemen
20. Phish

>Using a picture of Scaruffi
Everything you said is disregarded.

Pink Floyd should be there, but that's pretty accurate

>1. Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention
>2. The Doors
>3. The Jimi Hendrix Experience
>4. Grateful Dead
>6. The Beatles
>7. Nirvana
>10. Rush
>12. The Smashing Pumpkins
>13. The Smiths
>18. King Crimson
>19. Minutemen
Yes.

>5. SWANS
>8. Soft Machine
>9. Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band
>11. The Red Hot Chili Peppers
>14. Royal Trux
>15. The Byrds
>16. Jefferson Airplane
>17. Faust
>20. Phish
No.

Pretty accurate but do you want to know why The Mars Volta was and always will be the greatest rock band of the 21st century?

Nice list, just adding one little thing.

>Zappa
>Hendrix
>Doors
>Grateful Dead
>SWANS
>Soft Machine
>King Crimson
>Rush
>Phish
All of these are correct, discard the rest. Also add in Can and you have the objective top ten.

>The smiths
>No Faust

Trash opinion

>opinion
What do you mean opinion?

>No Led Zeppelin
>No Floyd
>No Black Sabbath
>No Genesis
>No Radiohead
>No Talking Heads

Opinion discarded

Velvet Underground needs to be in there.

You sound insufferable, but not in the way that leads you to liking good music

>no portugal the man
Disregarded

>no korn or limp bizkit

>14. Royal Trux
Why do people pretend to like this

>Phish

actually fucking off yourself you stupid pleb cunt

>Genesis

That guy actually put Nirvana in there, unironically?

Yes because they are.

>hasn't heard Foxtrot, Selling England by the Pound or Lamb Lies Down on Broadway
truly embarrassing

>Yes because they are.
No.

Tell me how that poorly executed edgy trash can fit in a objectively stupid top 20 like this one? Being influencial doesn't mean being good, ffs.

Nirvana is one of the finest rock acts to ever grave this Earth.

>poorly executed edgy trash
How so?
>Being influencial doesn't mean being good, ffs.
Wrong. it's literally the only measure of being good, since everything else is subjective.

What's next? Metallica is the best Metal Band ever?

>2. The Doors
>18. King Crimson
lmao

They're up there

>How so?
Dunno man, show me where this is great music. Basic structures, repetitive and basic (yet above average, gotta admit) drums, retarded riffs, edgy lyrics and dumb riffs.

>Wrong. it's literally the only measure of being good, since everything else is subjective.
God no. Genres have standards and goals, if one song doesn't respect them it's either another genre or a bad song from that genre. Being influencial is pretty much the same as being popular (well not really but in that case yes), and that's not because you were the first to do something that it's good.

I agree that from a technical, theoretical standpoint, Nirvana wasn't the most "talented", nor "intellectual" rock band of their time. At times, their music was very primitive compared to other alternative rock bands of their era, let alone the legends imprinted on the fabric of music history. However, to even compare and criticize Nirvana to other musicians/artists, especially to Hendrix and Dylan, would be missing the point entirely.

Nirvana is a PUNK band, first and foremost. Their ethos revolved around passion, spontaneity, and creativity, all jammed into simplicity. They didn't pride themselves on being the most intricate artists (though at times, their music, especially on In Utero, could rival quite a few art rock/metal bands at the time in terms of lyricism), but what they lacked in complexity, they made up for in sheer energy combined with abstract idealism. Kurt had a highly original mindset and imagination, corrupted to dolorous imagery and unmitigated horror. No artist could ever capture the pitiful scenarios he fantasized about, and transform it into a beautifully melodic, yet angry record, that laid the template for music eternally. Kurt Cobain's singing was somewhat of an acquired taste, but still was original insofar he was the first real singer to actually yell melodically, without sounding like a ditz or a moron. Smells Like Teen Spirit represented the apathy and nihilism of teenagers and adults at that time, and managed to achieve what most considered unfathomable: to appeal to both social outcasts/space cadets and the typical, bravado jocks Kurt himself hated. (1/2)

(2/2) And plus, with Nevermind, they finally managed to destroy the superficiality of the glam/hair metal era and in turn, finally gave rise to indie and alternative as the most popular form of rock, beginning a new era of creativity to music itself. If Nirvana attempted to be taken seriously as the new Beethoven or Mozart, or even to simply rival Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix or the Beatles, then they failed miserably as a band. However, if they wanted to grow their passion for music and explore their artistic side more, and reshape rock as a whole for possibly the entirety of the modern era, then they perfectly achieved so. Judging by your comments, you strike me as a person seeking more technically advanced forms of music, which I understand. You're entitled to your opinion on Nirvana, and might find it cliched to talk about the ink blots they made on the fabric of music, but at least respect their influence to music history, because a band like Nirvana only comes around once in a generation.

You may not like Nirvana, and that's fine because everyone has their own opinions, music being subjective and all that. But they are nearly universally acclaimed and that has more to do with their music than Kurt's death.

You don't have to call something trash because you don't like it. You can just say you don't like it. Especially calling something that's a classic, trash. You can do better my dude.

I was going to shit on you for ranking The Smashing Pumpkins lower than RHCP because I'm a Billy fanboy but then I noticed
>15. The Byrds
>18. King Crimson
Seriously?

Also
>Phish
>Even ranking

Nirvana are awesome. Contrarians grow up.

Finally someone recognizes The Byrds. Literally the most important American rock band.

>Dunno man
If you don't know, then it's probably not true
>Basic structures
So? That's fine
>retarded riffs
Whats retarded about them?
>edgy lyrics
How so? Like what?
>Genres have standards and goals
Oh you mean contrivance?

Goals and standards need to be broken, otherwise it's formulaic drek

>Being influencial is pretty much the same as being popular
Untrue. United States of America is a very influential band, but not popular.

>Genres have standards and goals, if one song doesn't respect them it's either another genre or a bad song from that genre.
Wow. Now this is plebness. You understand the function of genres? It's so people that own record stores know where to put stuff, so people shopping know where to look, for DJ's to know what to play, for listeners to know which station to pick. So people can talk about them.
Genres are NOT hard lines, drawn in the sand saying PLAY THIS or DON'T PLAY THAT.. if that's what you think a genre is you need to think about music very differently my dude. If that's what genres were, then music would never fucking develop. It would still be the same music over and over again, but obviously this isn't the case. New "genres" come into being.
Fucking pleb

I never said that I deny their influence. That would be retarded. But I do not say either that they need to be technical to be good. They weren't that innovative as some other bands had already done similar stuff before (I somewhat can't remember the names). Their "energy", no matter how strong can't fill the gap of emptiness their songs leave (if that makes sense). And I can say that even if I'm into genres (such as Krautrock or Psych) that may seem "empty" or "boring". Technicity isn't required to make great music. Their goal wasn't to make technical music but it wasn't to make Poppy easy-listenable stuff.
Now for that "destroying superficiality" thingy, it's quite ironical given that they've become amazingly commercial and that they've done lots of tasteless love songs.

And now I repeat it again, being popular or even considered as a "classic" (well I don't think they're even considered as such...) isn't related to quality.

I'm not shitting on it just because I don't like it, I even used to listen to it a lot when I was younger. But I found that there is way better out there and that it was just another catchy pop thingy after all.

>I'm not shitting on it just because I don't like it
Uhm.. what? Did you read your post? It's all your opinion, and a opinion that obviously means you don't like it. Which is fine. We like it, you don't. There's nowhere to go with this discussion.

>hey weren't that innovative as some other bands had already done similar stuff before
>(I somewhat can't remember the names).
Wow plebtastic!

Tell me more about shit you know nothing about

1. Grateful Dead
2. Parliament/Funkadelic
3. Black Sabbath
4. Zappa/Mothers
5. Talking Heads
6. Phish
7. The Beatles
8. The Meters
9. Sly and the Family Stone
10. Allman Brothers
11. The Band
12. Dire Straits
13. Steely Dan
14. Ramones
15. Traffic
16. Radiohead
17. Jimi Hendrix Experience
18. Mountain
19. Little Feat
20. Pink Floyd

>Soft Machine
>Beefheart
holy shit how pleb do you have to be to appreciate the Mothers and not appreciate the bands that did the same but better

>So? That's fine
Not in that case. Lots of songs end up being boring fillers because of that.

Goals and standards need to be broken, otherwise it's formulaic drek
You're wrong, that's why I said "or from another genre". Genres are so diverse because their goals change constantly, therefore as their borders can't be moved we create new designations. Classical Black and Post-Black are very different yet they're both Black Metal genres, that's why the designation changed. Genres ARE hard lines but that doesn't mean that music has to fit perfectly in them. You can't say that one genre is defined by something and change that afterward.

The fact that you even brought up genre as a point of criticism is the pleb behaviour. Nice wall of text idiot.

No, I gave arguments (such as the musical construction) to sustain my opinion. I'm not saying that you shouldn't like it or something, I'm saying that they don't deserve such fame and praise and I'm explaining why.
Discussing about Music isn't about taste, or there would be no discussion at all. Sure being objective is hard but not impossible, or Sup Forums wouldn't even exist.

That's also why I respect because he gave a good development of neutral analysis.

That question needs research that I can't do it now and that I don't just want to throw random names, you cunt.

>I'm saying that they don't deserve such fame and praise and I'm explaining why.
Who cares? They have the fame and praise whether someone from a mongolian rice patty forum likes it or not. Why are you wasting all your time on typing these posts? You don't like it, go listen to stuff you like and post about stuff you like you miserable shit. We're going in circles

You're the fckin pleb that can't read. And no, genres are an useful tool for describing and criticizing music, because of the goals they carry. It's not like I'm saying "that genre is crap" or something. You can't analyze music without questioning its goals, which are most commonly defined by genres, when you're not in the case of total precursors of a genre that has never existed before.

Nobody cares then. What's the point of this thread then? Just post useless tops and nothing else? Nirvana (or insert any band you want) doesn't deserve to be placed on a top 20 Rock bands ever, and the point of this thread is discussing about it. If you don't care I suggest you stop using internet because you'll encounter lots of people that will try to discuss about things.
It's just the same as discussing about politics. Discussing about it won't make the politicians change their views or change history, or whatever you want.

1. Van Der Graaf Generator
2. Peter Hammill
3 and below: everyone else

My man.

>any of those besides Floyd and Talking Heads

I don't know about you but for me internet time is leisure time and I'd rather not use it to piss in circles with teens about whether Nirvana is good or not. Buh bye

The Velvet Underground
Can
Pink Floyd
Talking Heads
The Beach Boys
Stone Roses
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Cocteau Twins
My Bloody Valentine
Fugazi
Pavement
Yo La Tengo
XTC
Joy Division
Pere Ubu
Faust
Slowdive
Flaming Lips
Sonic Youth
Mercury Rev
The Pop Group
Neil Young
Robert Wyatt
They should all be considered, sorry if I related some from the OP it was not my intention

1. the eagles
below: everyone else

I love the Eagles.

>Frank Zappa and Mothers of Invention
>Soft Machine
>King Crimson
>Minutemen

The only worthwhile contenders in your shit list. Listen to more music before posting bullshit like this please.

3 songs = being on a GOAT list.

>songs
bruh, at least try to use your brain

This is shit bait

Genesis is shitty pop for losers who hate music. Fuck off!

>the bands that did the same but better
Show me a Soft Machine album that soudns like Hot Rats
>Not in that case
Why not?
>fillers
I don't think you know what filler is
>That question needs research
It doesn't It's common knowledge. If you just don't know, you probably shouldn't be discussing music. Especially if you are >complexity = better

Look at all those bands influenced by The Beatles, but you didn't include The Beatles on your list!

>If you don't care I suggest you stop using internet because you'll encounter lots of people that will try to discuss about things.
But in your case, not very well.