Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
It's as if the Clash (not huge favorites of mine, though the first LP is of course classic; the second is about half-classic, & so is the third) never existed ...
Also: Wire. The Fall. Mekons. Buzzcocks. T. Rex. Etc. etc. etc. Someone's not very attuned to British bands, I take it.
I mean, you might love Wire or T. Rex, but critical and popular consensus doesn't necessarily place them ahead of REM or Nirvana
Those are hardly unassailable classics except for someone with a severe case of anglophilia.
I'm British, so I probably biased
Dude, didn't you move to America when you were, like, 2?
I was eight, but I still consider myself British.
To these ears, the 1992 comeback album #3 was notably superior to album #2 ("Adventure").
Liking Adventure more than Marquee Moon & the Pogues' Waiting for Herb far more than anything they ever did with Drunken McToothless are probably my two biggest heresies.
The Velvet Underground album I listen to the most is their 1994 reunion concert.
Popular consensus? Not worth considering, unless you're mistaking radio programmers & the like for people with brains & taste.
In all seriousness, what criteria are you using to determine "best band"?
Of course -- what #139 said.
Mass popularity is all well & good, & every now & then lightning strikes twice, as it were, & a great band is a massively popular band, or a great movie is a massively popular movie, or a great author ... etc. But the two concepts aren't necessarily mutually inclusive, of course; sometimes it's quite the opposite.
Or maybe I'm living in a fantasy world, & Stephenie Meyer (to pull one example out of the air) really is one of the greatest writers who ever lived.
or me, 'greatness' isn't an either/or matter. The greatest absolutely should be excellent in some aesthetic sense that exceeds the simple judgment of popularity. But they probably should be popular, too. I can see the argument for greatness in some fields should be defined in terms that exclude the general population. In baseball, for example, greatness can be pretty well quantified - regardless of what people happen to think about a guy. Skill at the guitar is also objective in some sense. I will generally accept the opinions of experts about who is the best technical guitarist or drummer, or whose brushstrokes are the most finely wrought. But the more you draw the camera out to take in the whole experience of the artistic object, the less I'm going to defer to that kind of judgment. If a song is intricately crafted but sounds like garbage to 99.99% of people, I don't think it should be called the greatest.
If you want 'the greatest band' to be identical with 'my favorite band' that's fine. But I don't think most people will agree with you.
no mention of Phish. they have toured for 30 years and do what the Grateful Dead did probably just as well, as well as having influences rooted in prog, jazz fusion, and bluegrass.
no mention of Phish.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.6308 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed