The REAL greatest bands

[nadroj1985]

Now... I like rock music and I understand that most everyone else does too. However, since classical music was brought up... I can't imagine how anyone could make the argument that rock can hold a candle to the great classical composers.

I can But I might have to do it through a question: What makes classical music better than rock?

 

[ps139]

I can But I might have to do it through a question: What makes classical music better than rock?

My take on this is that song for song, classical has a higher percentage of better songs than rock. There are way more crappy rock songs than classical songs. This could also be due to the fact that bad classical songs arent ever heard anymore, and it was really hard to make it as a musician back then, so the bad stuff probably never got off its feet.

 

[blackwasp]

How can I compare the Edge with David Gilmour or Jimi Hendrix? I can't, really; they all have their own playing styles. I love Pink Floyd and I love Hendrix, but the Edge isn't even TRYING to play the way conventional rock guitarists play; he's a lot more concerned with the sound, and he's very conservative with notes. Cartridge, you probably know that, you seem very concerned about proving how much you know about rock music. A lot of their contemporaries are still impressed with the music they produce today, 20-plus years after their founding; the same can't be said about the Rolling Stones.

I'm sure the same could be said for the Rolling Stones. Even if the Rolling Stones don't release material of the same quality today, that doesn't take away from what they did in the 60s and early 70s.

Not only are they great musicians who put on a great show, but I've always been impressed with U2's loyalty to each other, their manager, and their label. Then there's Bono's crusades to try and end third-world debt and raise AIDS awareness, instead of sleeping with floozies and doing lines. Now THAT is actual greatness.

But what does that have to do with their music?

It's funny that U2 was dimissed out of hand with some vagaries about accusing their fans of not knowing music, but without any actual reasoning. It would be easy to dismiss rock music altogother, because while I like it, listening to Bach or Mozart makes me realize all this rock/pop stuff, even the best of it, is just so much flash-in-the-pan tripe.

Dan

PS hit the nail on the head when he alluded to the fact that only the best classical songs are left today. I, for one, think that rock can contend with classical.

 

[nadroj1985]

My take on this is that song for song, classical has a higher percentage of better songs than rock. There are way more crappy rock songs than classical songs.

Is that how you would measure it? I don't know......I might measure it by the number of pieces in each format that I thought were masterpieces, and neglect the bad stuff altogether. There would be numerous ways to measure it, all useless most likely.

This could also be due to the fact that bad classical songs arent ever heard anymore, and it was really hard to make it as a musician back then, so the bad stuff probably never got off its feet.

That's a good point. Think Britney Spears will be remembered 200 years later? I don't I'm sure classical music had some Britneys.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Personally, the thing that really hits home with classical music that rock just simply cannot do is the way all the instruments work together. I mean, rock bands make some amazing sounds and melodies and countermelodies and everything, but to have a hundred different musicians putting together a piece so perfect and well written that it can bring its audience to tears astounds me. Yes, modern bands have songs that move their listeners to tears, but with words. Just the sheer power of the music that composers evoke is incredible.

If you want one of my personal favorites, find a really good version of "Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral" by Richard Wagner. Wow.

 

[nadroj1985]

Personally, the thing that really hits home with classical music that rock just simply cannot do is the way all the instruments work together. I mean, rock bands make some amazing sounds and melodies and countermelodies and everything, but to have a hundred different musicians putting together a piece so perfect and well written that it can bring its audience to tears astounds me. Yes, modern bands have songs that move their listeners to tears, but with words. Just the sheer power of the music that composers evoke is incredible.

Rock musicians can bring me to tears with music as well. *shrugs* I think rock music can be just as emotionally powerful as classical.

 

[ps139]

That's a good point. Think Britney Spears will be remembered 200 years later? I don't I'm sure classical music had some Britneys.

Maybe she will, but not for her music!

 

[nadroj1985]

 

[ps139]

Rock musicians can bring me to tears with music as well. *shrugs* I think rock music can be just as emotionally powerful as classical.

Yeah I agree. Gonzo you have a good point about orchestral symphonies, rock cannot do that. Once you get like 7 or 8 guys in a band you cant do much else. If you can even make it work with 7 or 8.

But rock can do plenty of things that classical can't do. How about the guitar solo?? Piano solos are phenomenal but they dont have the sustain that an electric guitar has, and theres no such thing as bending notes.

Classical solos were also real "solos." Rock solos always have accompaniment (unless its some masterpiece Zeppelin song ) and I think that makes it better, even thought its not a "true solo."

And theres something else that classical doesnt have that rock does - DRUMS. Drums, working together with the bass and guitar, can create so much energy in a way that classical can't compare to.

So you cant really say one style is better than another. You may prefer one over the other but if one style is actually better there is no way for us to know. And I dont think its true anyway. Its a style. Either can be intensely emotional and both have brought me to tears, and both have elevated me into the zone.

 

[nadroj1985]

Yeah, comparing apples and oranges are always difficult. The thing is, someone could say, "Well there's no way rock music can be as instrumentally complex as classical." And that statement's true, probably, but it would be like saying "Oranges are better because they are orange, and orange is my favorite color."

 

[ps139]

LOL quite true!!

 

[angrypanda]

I'm sure the same could be said for the Rolling Stones. Even if the Rolling Stones don't release material of the same quality today, that doesn't take away from what they did in the 60s and early 70s.

Sorry if I implied any insult to the Stones's early work; such was not my intent. I was referring to their latest stuff: unimpressive, whilst U2's All That You Can't Leave Behind was a critical and popular success.

But what does that have to do with their music?

Not a whole lot, frankly, but since we're talking "greatest band" here, I feel I can drag in any qualifications I want for what I think contributes to making U2 one of the greats.

PS hit the nail on the head when he alluded to the fact that only the best classical songs are left today. I, for one, think that rock can contend with classical.

I guess the classical thing merits further clarification as well. For starters, I like rock music. I really do. I like the Beatles (though I think they're overrated, personally), I like the Stones, I love Zeppelin, I admire Hendrix. I like a lot of contemporary stuff, too, e.g. Death Cab for Cutie and Oranger.

If you think nothing but the best classical stuff is left, then either you don't listen to enough classical, or you have an even higher opinion of the stuff than me. There really is a lot of fluff out there.

However, there is no piece of rock music that can hold a candle to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, or Faure's Requiem. I mean, the best rock song set against one of those (especially the former) is just gonna sound cheap. (Spare me the Dreamtheater.) On the other hand, it was mentioned (and I agree) that the two have a different sort of emotional intent; there aren't any classical pieces I can think of that can get my blood pumping like "Rock n' Roll" from Zeppelin.

What it boils down to, I guess, is that if some alien species popped down and for some inane reason wanted to know what our species was capable of musically, I would point them to the classical composers long before I'd show 'em rock.

Finally, because I've been going for way too long already, the classical thing was really just an example. Certain folks seemed to be getting rather elitist about what they felt constitutes a "great" rock band, when it's really a subjective matter. I was trying to point out that a so-called great rock band ain't really all that much when propped against something else ... at least in my opinion. And the point was just that: that it's my opinion to classify what I think of as great however I want to. That's the whole point of this discussion, right?

Dan

 

[nadroj1985]

Certain folks seemed to be getting rather elitist about what they felt constitutes a "great" rock band, when it's really a subjective matter.

Interestingly enough, so are comparisons between genres

 

[Bayhawks83]

no group compares to 'Monchy Y Alexandra'

International rock:
los mockers
les sales majestes
wizo

if you want me to name american rock bands then heres my list:
U2(their played on classic rock radio for a reason)
Rolling Stones
R.E.M.
Bob Dylan
Elvis Presley

 

[ps139]

If you think nothing but the best classical stuff is left, then either you don't listen to enough classical, or you have an even higher opinion of the stuff than me. There really is a lot of fluff out there.

Well maybe this should be rephrased to say that there is more bad rock available than bad classical. Just with technology alone, everything can be recorded. Also the accessibility of songs is so much different. And back then you needed a lot of people to play one song, you're not going to waste time with some mediocre piece. It was like an investment. Or like natural selection. Or both .

 

[nadroj1985]

Well maybe this should be rephrased to say that there is more bad rock available than bad classical. Just with technology alone, everything can be recorded. Also the accessibility of songs is so much different. And back then you needed a lot of people to play one song, you're not going to waste time with some mediocre piece. It was like an investment. Or like natural selection. Or both .

Good point. Part of the beauty of rock music is that anyone can do it; of course, it can be part of the ugliness of rock too