What's new
By:

Collin Cowherd's Rock Band Bracket

Queen is not even in the discussion when debating "Greatest Rock and Roll Band Ever". They were great musicians and Freddie Mercury was as good a singer as there's been. But they had one great album. Just one. They had some other great songs, but best ever should have more than one great album. My mind is pretty closed when it comes to the title of greatest RnR band ever, but I will agree that cases can be made for The Stones, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and U2. Any other arugments are null and void in my opinion.
 
I don't see what U2 is doing with any of those other guys. Their biggest legacy to me seems to be birthing groups like Coldplay
 
Lance-A-Million said:
I don't see what U2 is doing with any of those other guys. Their biggest legacy to me seems to be birthing groups like Coldplay
Click to expand...

They are the last entry of the bands for which I would hear arguments. The reasoning is that I would argue that 30 years later they're still filling stadiums world wide is a testament to their greatness, and having two of the best albums ever ("Joshua Tree" and "Achtung Baby"), along with another 3-4 excellent albums puts them in the conversation.
 
Madonna's still filling stadiums worldwide. Lady Gaga's filling stadiums world wide. It's just to me you bring 3 of the classicist of the classics and then try and throw U2 up with them.... I don't know what U2 is but it sure ain't classic rock. It's like Bono-music. A genre in-of-itself that has slowly but surely derivated into the worst of the worst. For U2 to represent the pinnacle would be... I dunno... discouraging to say the least
 
Lance-A-Million said:
Madonna's still filling stadiums worldwide. Lady Gaga's filling stadiums world wide.
Click to expand...

We're talking about the greatest bands here. Not the greatest artists. There's a difference. To you, maybe, there isn't, but you can throw any pack of players up with Madonna or Gaga, and it's the same. The bands we're discussing are as much about chemistry as anything. Paul McCartney and 3 session guys isn't The Beatles.
 
Bronco70 said:
We're talking about the greatest bands here. Not the greatest artists. There's a difference. To you, maybe, there isn't, but you can throw any pack of players up with Madonna or Gaga, and it's the same. The bands we're discussing are as much about chemistry as anything. Paul McCartney and 3 session guys isn't The Beatles.
Click to expand...

All I'm trying to say is filling up stadiums - to me, mind you - isn't always an indicator of so-called "greatness". Thats all I'm saying by that

Edit: Ok true that I guess there's the whole "romantic mystic of the band and its chemistry" angle going on here too... that's fully valid. But shouldn't hold greater consideration than the actual music I would say
 
Ok so if you need bands to understand what I'm saying, Green Day fills up stadiums. The Killers fill up stadiums, Coldplay fills up stadiums. These guys are not in the greatest band discussion
 
Lance-A-Million said:
Madonna's still filling stadiums worldwide. Lady Gaga's filling stadiums world wide. It's just to me you bring 3 of the classicist of the classics and then try and throw U2 up with them.... I don't know what U2 is but it sure ain't classic rock. It's like Bono-music. A genre in-of-itself that has slowly but surely derivated into the worst of the worst. For U2 to represent the pinnacle would be... I dunno... discouraging to say the least
Click to expand...

I'm not bringing Madonna into this because we're discussing bands, not individual artists. Same with Lady GaGa, but if she's still around in 30 years and filling stadiums, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I'm not sure I would agree that U2 is not classic rock. They did come out of the post-punk ashes that started "new wave", but they were never "new wave". Their sound has morphed through the years, but I think "Sunday Bloody Sunday", "Pride", and "With or Without You", to mention a few, sound good on the classic rock stations. I also don't know if Pink Floyd is any more rock than U2. Both play well to the planetarium crowd, with the swirling music. The thing that U2 has going against it is that they are still making music and with each album, they get further away from where they started, but that's just what the Beatles did. I don't think it's a bad thing.
 
Lance-A-Million said:
Ok so if you need bands to understand what I'm saying, Green Day fills up stadiums. The Killers fill up stadiums, Coldplay fills up stadiums. These guys are not in the greatest band discussion
Click to expand...

My use of the stadium example is that U2 still fills the stadiums. Green Day had a difficult time selling the ESA last time they were here. They resorted to heavily discounted ticket prices. Do the Killers fill stadiums? I honestly don't know. If Coldplay is still filling them in twenty years, then they can be in the discussion, too. If the three survivors of Zeppelin or Floyd got together and toured, they could print their own money from the stadium ticket sales. People want to see them.
 
Last edited:
Had G'n'R stuck it out for a couple more (good) albums, they could be in the argument. I know that if they all got back together, they could sell out any venue in the world. As it is, they're in the "if only" category with Nirvana and The Clash.
 
YB85 said:
I'm not bringing Madonna into this because we're discussing bands, not individual artists. Same with Lady GaGa, but if she's still around in 30 years and filling stadiums, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I'm not sure I would agree that U2 is not classic rock. They did come out of the post-punk ashes that started "new wave", but they were never "new wave". Their sound has morphed through the years, but I think "Sunday Bloody Sunday", "Pride", and "With or Without You", to mention a few, sound good on the classic rock stations. I also don't know if Pink Floyd is any more rock than U2. Both play well to the planetarium crowd, with the swirling music. The thing that U2 has going against it is that they are still making music and with each album, they get further away from where they started, but that's just what the Beatles did. I don't think it's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I mean, I'm not going to lie - I'm not the worlds biggest Pink Floyd fan, kinda because a lot of their music is kinda slow,long, drifting, etc. Of course I know there's great tunes by them I have not heard, and there's no way I would ever dismiss Floyd if I wanted my opinion to be even remotely credible - they're established, they're canon. However, I don't feel U2 has reached that "untouchable" zone, nor will they ever. I mean its all just truly a matter of opinion. Maybe calling U2 the greatest band of the last 20-30 years would be more agreeable.
 
Also - its obvious to me that U2 made some sort of massive cultural imprint before I was born and in the early years of my life... so that's a force that I know I cannot reckon with. I'll have to defer to you more... "venerable" gents with respect to that. That won't stop me from my own revisionism when I get up there, however
 
Lance-A-Million said:
Also - its obvious to me that U2 made some sort of massive cultural imprint before I was born and in the early years of my life... so that's a force that I know I cannot reckon with. I'll have to defer to you more... "venerable" gents with respect to that. That won't stop me from my own revisionism when I get up there, however
Click to expand...

How old are you? I don't mean that in a condescending way, I'm just wondering what your memory of 1987-92 is. That is where U2 made their name. If all you knew was U2 of today, I would completely understand your disagreement with my including them in the discussion.
 
YB85 said:
How old are you? I don't mean that in a condescending way, I'm just wondering what your memory of 1987-92 is. That is where U2 made their name. If all you knew was U2 of today, I would completely understand your disagreement with my including them in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Yeah man, I'm 23... So I think we've hit the nail on the head there.
 
YB85 said:
The thing that U2 has going against it is that they are still making music and with each album, they get further away from where they started, but that's just what the Beatles did. I don't think it's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think their progression has been that linear.

My relationship with U2 is completely atypical. I think I've posted before that my favorite U2 albums were "Rattle and Hum" "Zooropa" and "Pop." The latter two in particular are pretty far removed from something like "The Unforgettable Fire." Of course Zooropa and Pop were also widely considered failures. I thought it was pretty widely acknowledged that U2 purposely tried to go back to their classic sound starting around 2000.

I don't think that's similar to the Beatles progression path at all. If anything U2 backtracked significantly when it didn't get positive feedback to doing something outside of audience expectations.
 
Just as a side note, U2 formed in '76. They were signed to Island records around 1980, I believe. Granted, they really hit their stride in the mid-late 80's, but they have actually been around longer than many people realize.
 
Sirkickyass said:
I don't think their progression has been that linear.

My relationship with U2 is completely atypical. I think I've posted before that my favorite U2 albums were "Rattle and Hum" "Zooropa" and "Pop." The latter two in particular are pretty far removed from something like "The Unforgettable Fire." Of course Zooropa and Pop were also widely considered failures. I thought it was pretty widely acknowledged that U2 purposely tried to go back to their classic sound starting around 2000.

I don't think that's similar to the Beatles progression path at all. If anything U2 backtracked significantly when it didn't get positive feedback to doing something outside of audience expectations.
Click to expand...

I think YB's main point, and correct e if I'm wrong YB, is that U2's stuff, album to album is vastly different. Was their evolution linear? No, you make a valid point. But they evolved (or devolved) album to album, for better or worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top