Interesting list....

[Roddy]

Check this out. Of course, these things are very subjective, but this seems reasonably thorough. And I was very interested to see who came in at 14, and who they finished above!!!!!

http://www.avrev.com/bands/

 

[ManWithNoName]

How were Zepplin THAT far ahead on technical ability?

 

[johnnyhoward]

Every list is subjective to some extent, but here they've gone about it with a good, well-thought out system.

The Beatles were owned in technical ability, hard to argue with that.

 

[don vito of fitzroy]

I'm glad that the Beatles didn't get the number one spot. Most of their stuff until 1964 was rather cheesy. After that, it was all gold.

To some extent, I don't understand why the Stones were only at number 20. They have a great catalogue but their albums post-1978 weren't classics. Not only that, Richards is great at writing the great riff but he isn't a great soloist like a Hendrix, Page or May.

Why is Underworld there and why are Living Colour so innovative?

 

[johnnyhoward]

How were Zepplin THAT far ahead on technical ability?

They got 78/100, most than other bands. Ringo was a good honest drummer on most songs, he had a few great performances. Late-era Beatles would have been up there on techincal ability but from 62-66 when recording techniques were going through a transitional phase, they would have been a bit behind. Also their albums before Beatles for Sale were good for lightweight pop albums, but plenty of simple guitar pieces from Harrison would have brought it down.

Black Eyed Peas scraping into the top 100? Hmmm.

 

[superfraser]

Interesting.

Didn't see too many bands from the Now.

Correct my eyes if they mislead me.

I didn't see a couple of Bigfootys favourites. Oasis. Muse.

It was too much of a grand pa list for me.

Too many bands who I don't know well enough to really comment about.

Interesting, none the less.

 

[johnnyhoward]

Haha, grand pa list. Fact is, alot of the best music was made in the 60s and 70s. (OK, maybe not a cold hard fact )

I suggest you seek out those classic albums we recommended in that thread of yours superfrase

 

[Carlos]

How were Zepplin THAT far ahead on technical ability?

Plant: one of the greatest rock voices of all time
Page: one of the absolute greatest rock guitarists of all time.
Bonham: one of (arguably THE) greatest rock drummer of all time. Just about defines the genre actually.
Paul-Jones: an unbelievably gifted musician.

Pretty clear cut to be honest.

And i'm really curious as to how Soundgarden only got marked an 83 on technical ability when Stone Temple Pilots scored and 85. Apart from Dean DeLeo who is a great guitarist, Soundgarden absolutely sh*t all over STP as players and IMO stack up favourably to just about any group anyone wants to throw up in terms of pure musicianship.

 

[Carlos]

Living Colour so innovative?

Sounds and ideas.

Verno Reid was doing the Tom Morello space sounds thing long before anyone. Both bassists were awesome, but Wimbish in particular is a pioneer in terms of expanding what sounds you can get out of a bass rig. And Calhoun is just another who thinks very much outside the square.

What raised my eyebrows though was that they only got a 38/50 for live performance. These people have clearly never actually seen them play. They make most other bands of their era look like Jet.

 

[Roddy]

Living Colour were absolute groundbreakers in their day. Amazing band, and still one of the best live bands I've ever seen.

 

[johnnyhoward]

Living Colour were absolute groundbreakers in their day. Amazing band, and still one of the best live bands I've ever seen.

What are some of their best songs? I've only heard Cult of Personality, most likely one of their more pop-oriented tracks.

 

[John]

Haha, grand pa list. Fact is, alot of the best music was made in the 60s and 70s. (OK, maybe not a cold hard fact )

I suggest you seek out those classic albums we recommended in that thread of yours superfrase

I do understand superfrase point though. I am old enough to remember The Beatles but I am convinced that my generation, and few after just quietly, are prone to dismiss contemporary music, and the bands that produced that music, bit too easily. I have been blown away in my time by some fantastic contemporary music that has not got a mention on that list. Massive Attack for example. Chemical Brothers is another. Folk has reinvented itself with some fantastic stuff from the likes of Cocorosie for example.

It is strange when I look at that list. I have recordings by every one of the top 10. I have only played Pink Floyd in recent years and then almost exclusively the early Syd Barret stuff. The rest of it sounds stale after too many listens at old peoples BBQ's.

 

[G.O.B]

I'm glad that the Beatles didn't get the number one spot. Most of their stuff until 1964 was rather cheesy. After that, it was all gold.

You do realise that they only made their first "official" recording as The Beatles in 1963.
After Love Me Do, which I dont have too much time for, it was all gold imo.
Based on the criteria used and all the facets involved, I have no problem with The Beatles being nudged out of their rightful position by Led Zeppelin.
The one real suprise for me was the high position attained by the Stone Temple Pilots. A good band for sure but highly overrated on this list regardless of the criteria used to judge.

 

[Roddy]

What are some of their best songs? I've only heard Cult of Personality, most likely one of their more pop-oriented tracks.

Makes me wonder if you've actually heard it, if you think CoP is pop-orientated. Probably their best known tune is 'Love Rears it's Ugly Head'. Now that's pop, but a great song nonetheless.
Other great LC tunes are: 'Bi', 'Glamour Boys', 'Nothingness', 'Elvis is Dead', 'Type', 'Middle man' etc etc.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I'm not to sure about that list.

Some of the scores for some bands under innovation seem a bit of a joke.

The Dixie Chicks an 85 for innovation? Innovation for what?

And it's bias for bands with American sales doesn't seem much of an indicator considering some of the bands there would have been more Euro bands than American ones.

 

[whythelongface]

I'm a big fan of the Stone Temple Pilots but how the hell did they get to be the 13th best band of all time - in front of bands such as The Who, ACDC, Fleetwood Mac, Pearl Jam etc.

The Eagles in the top 10 - FFS AOR crap. Why do they rate so highly? They are ordinary and appealed to middle of the road America - country bumpkins.

 

[finrod]

This poll is bollocks. Radiohead scored 50/100 for technical ability and 47/100 for innovation!! Johnny Greenwood and Ed O'Brien are great guitarists - they should easily get more than 50/100 for technical ability! Van Halen 93/100 for innovation and 91/100 for songs!??? You gotta be bloody joking! How did Black Eyed Peas even make the top 100?

 

[mr_cellotape]

Heh, I was about to say "Glad to see Radiohead down the bottom where they belong", and then saw this:

This poll is bollocks. Radiohead scored 50/100 for technical ability and 47/100 for innovation!! Johnny Greenwood and Ed O'Brien are great guitarists - they should easily get more than 50/100 for technical ability!

No. Just.. no. Why do you think they dropped their instruments to play samplers and keyboards for two albums? Oh right, because they'd mastered their instrument and got bored

An interesting list, but there are some totally odd rankings. The Eagles at 7? Stone Temple Pilots at 13? Audioslave above Black Sabbath?! Yeah, enough said.

Also, RATM with a 82 for technical ability... huh?

 

[finrod]

No. Just.. no. Why do you think they dropped their instruments to play samplers and keyboards for two albums? Oh right, because they'd mastered their instrument and got bored

If you ever saw Radiohead play live you would know that they ARE masters of their instruments, but not to the point of being w@nky... Would you mark down the Beatles for experimenting with different instruments on Sgt Peppers, etc.

 

[mr_cellotape]

If you ever saw Radiohead play live you would know that they ARE masters of their instruments, but not to the point of being w@nky... Would you mark down the Beatles for experimenting with different instruments on Sgt Peppers, etc.

I've seen live footage of them when I went through my "everyone loves this band so I'm gunna try to figure out what the big deal is" phrase with them. If Pearl Jam only gets 55 for technical ability on this list, a 50 for Radiohead is generous.

 

[Geddy Lee]

Geddy Lee is pleased that his band was rated so highly, but Geddy Lee also admits that no-one was more innovative and had such mind-boggling technicality as Frank Zappa.

There is also the suspicious absence of Toto that raises questions of thoroughness.

 

[Shmoses]

No. Just.. no. Why do you think they dropped their instruments to play samplers and keyboards for two albums? Oh right, because they'd mastered their instrument and got bored

Haha what? What are you saying here? Are you saying it's bad that they experiment with different sounds and instruments?

Also, RATM with a 82 for technical ability... huh?

Why not? They have a rhythm section that are so tight they could be a hip hop band, a vocalist who could write really good lyrics, and guitarist with not only immense guitar playing skill but an innovative ear also. Check the first album for his ability to combine the skills, less the almost gimmicky stuff on the Battle of Los Angeles.

 

[mr_cellotape]

Haha what? What are you saying here? Are you saying it's bad that they experiment with different sounds and instruments?

That was my snarky round-about way of saying that Radiohead are not great musicians, and as such, a 50/100 for technicality was a fair score.

Why not? They have a rhythm section that are so tight they could be a hip hop band, a vocalist who could write really good lyrics, and guitarist with not only immense guitar playing skill but an innovative ear also. Check the first album for his ability to combine the skills, less the almost gimmicky stuff on the Battle of Los Angeles.

Only guy in that band that I rate musicanship-wise is the drummer. Commerford's a ****ty bassist, Morello is the most overrated musican in modern rock, and Zach... yeah, the less said about his one-trick-ponyness the better. And what does writing "really good lyrics" have to do with technical ability?!

They're not alone in getting ridiculous ratings on that list, though. Tool has a 85 on that list for technical ability. I mean, their guitarist is more talented at making their bloody video clips than he is at actually playing his instrument.

 

[Shmoses]

I know what you were trying to say with the first quote, all I was pointing is that you said in a stupid way. Also you're wrong.

In regards to Rage, I know Tim Commerford didn't exactly set the world alight, but you've to got to recognise the tight grooves that he and Brad Wilk put together. A more impressive bassist wouldn't be necessarily able to do that. I personally don't think Morello's at all over rated, he has good skills and great vision. As for Zach's lyrics, how isn't writing really good lyrics a technical ability, especially when you're a rapper? That's one of the main skills in rapping, if you can't write good (or at least functional) lyrics then you're just some guy saying stupid ****. And his lyrics were good, especially when they weren't political.

As for Tool... well, they're unarguably technically gifted, all of them, especially the drummer. Sometimes it makes their music a chore to listen to but you really can't deny their talent for complexity.

 

[mr_cellotape]

Also you're wrong.

I'd love to heard an explanation of how I'm wrong on that. That would be fascinating.

In regards to Rage, I know Tim Commerford didn't exactly set the world alight, but you've to got to recognise the tight grooves that he and Brad Wilk put together.

Totally. Heard a live recording of Bulls on Parade the other night on Triple J. Very tight band. I can't say that I consider 'tightness' - for lack of a better term - to fall under 'technical ability'. Has more relevance to their live performance, in my opinion (another reason the list in stupid in parts; 26/50 for live performance for RATM?!; I don't like the band much, but they sound pretty much identical live to their records, hence they're obviously bloody good live).

I personally don't think Morello's at all over rated, he has good skills and great vision.

Fair enough it's your opinion. It's just that skilled guitarists everywhere cringe when they hear people lauding Morello's mediocrity.

As for Zach's lyrics, how isn't writing really good lyrics a technical ability, especially when you're a rapper? That's one of the main skills in rapping, if you can't write good (or at least functional) lyrics then you're just some guy saying stupid ****. And his lyrics were good, especially when they weren't political.

Again, I don't see how writing lyrics fall under the category of technical ability. As the definitions above the list says, "All too often, music critics overlook a band’s ability to play their asses off". 'Play their asses off', not 'sit in a room and jot stuff down on a notepad'.

And "F' you I won't do what you tell me" repeated ad nauseum doesn't not a good lyricist make.

As for Tool... well, they're unarguably technically gifted, all of them, especially the drummer. Sometimes it makes their music a chore to listen to but you really can't deny their talent for complexity.

Danny Carey is a very good yet overrated drummer, and Maynard is a good singer, even though he only has one style. They're not complex. People who think Tool are complex need to listen to more music.