|
|
Post by strat-0 on Oct 15, 2005 19:51:44 GMT -5
Aw, man, I didn't want the Beatles to beat out the Who! Though, like Kool and so many others, I had them high on the list. I should have buried them lower! Some of the ties are interesting. Pink Floyd and the Kinks were jockeying for similar positions in my list (for totally different reasons), and they appeared together in a virtual tie in the poll. Some of the other tieing bands also had interesting similarities or differences. Well done, Ken!  |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 15, 2005 20:39:18 GMT -5
FYI ... 17 people voted for the Beatles, which gave them an average of 29.64 out of 35 possible. In contrast, the Clash had an average of 25!
Kool -- I think you hit it exactly right. When you're talking about US bands, after the VU it's anyone's game, but with the (greater) UK, there are so many that everyone acknowledges.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Oct 16, 2005 16:01:20 GMT -5
Wow, that's a pretty good list. Just from glancing through the lists, I was thinking that the Beatles actually might not end up in the top spot, but I guess their wide appeal more than made up for the fact that few put them right at the top. Anyway, you fuckers completely let me down on my campaign for the Zombies. I don't know how you live with yourselves.  |
|
|
|
Post by ScottsyII on Oct 16, 2005 19:09:31 GMT -5
Alot of my bands seemed to fall in lower end of that list, and I think that would have alot to do with my preference for 90's bands... and the seemingly more marginal than I expected Britpop... :-) Still, I had Pink Floyd, Radiohead and U2 in the upper portion of the list, so I am not TOO far off the mark where everyone else is...
Of notable absence in my list was the top three bands... not, I emphasize, due to the fact I dislike them, but they merely weren't bands I have been majorly into in my life time thus far, and if my list were to be honest, I couldn't put them on there with any conviction... and doing that, I feel would have compromised the integrity of the list anyways.
A few things surpised me though... Genesis finishing higher than Queen was not something I'd have expected, and it made me smile because I think they were the far superior band of the two... I mean did put them at number 1 on my list. Blur did alright, I didn't even expect to seem them anywhere near where they were!
But yeah, the "must be different to everyone else" side of my personality is kinda pleased to have alot of bands in the bottom quarter...hahahahahahaha!
Overall a pretty exhaustive and definitive list of GREAT British bands, and made for some great observations... maybe we should submit these lists to radio stations and petition them to play more of the kinda stuff that appears here... hehe!
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 17, 2005 5:52:03 GMT -5
Shame I missed this one, because
(a) I'm actually British
(b) Britpop might not be so quickly written off as 'dead'
(c) MOST FUCKING IMPORTANTLY OF ALL.... Led Zeppelin would not have finished above Radiohead, which is the most risible survey result in the history of both these boards and their predecessor.
I am truly aghast...
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 17, 2005 6:02:55 GMT -5
Oh well, that'll teach me to check my PMs and not miss important deadlines. I'm not going to bother with a list since it won't count, but my top two would have to be Radiohead then the Smiths.
I agree with luke that , despite very English-sounding classics dominating 95-97, like The Bends, OK Computer, Urban Hymns, Different Class and Definitely Maybe, the 90s was *generally* a decade where British bands didn't shine overall. I see a lot of bands around now who are putting that right.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Oct 17, 2005 6:24:55 GMT -5
Shame I missed this one, because (a) I'm actually British (b) Britpop might not be so quickly written off as 'dead' (c) MOST FUCKING IMPORTANTLY OF ALL.... Led Zeppelin would not have finished above Radiohead, which is the most risible survey result in the history of both these boards and their predecessor. I am truly aghast... (d) it would also have confirmed yet again that JLLM and I were seperated at birth yet still share a common musical brain for how these things should work, and not everyone arbitrarily believes Led Zeppelin are worthy of any sort of worship or admiration. and (e) that I'm not alone as Mr. Holzman puts it, in believing that music may not have began in 1978, but it's when things got most interesting. Don't miss any more surveys, or I'll arrange for more of your cherished office supplies to be stolen. |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 17, 2005 6:31:31 GMT -5
As always Riley, you talk sense. Best give me a nudge when/if the solo artist list comes up, else PJH will no doubt finish behind Alison fucking Moyet...
Not that I'm bitter. What do you think of the new FF album, while we're on British music?
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Oct 17, 2005 6:40:27 GMT -5
I like it. Not sure it's quite as exciting as the debut, but it certainly sits respectably along side. Like the debut though, they have a perfect grip on the type of band they are with no apologies or pretense. They write songs that pretty girls can dance to. I have no issue with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 17, 2005 6:54:25 GMT -5
I'm wondering if it's less exciting partly because the world and its wife have been doing that shronky, clipped guitar chunka-chunka-chukka-chukka ever since their debut? If you know what I mean. Especially in the UK.
Like the first album, there's also that sense that it might get worn and familiar a little too quickly, despite a couple of added tricks in the production. I don't envisage myself still playing it in 6 months like I would a Takk or a Funeral.
Having said that, I think all the hooks are just about as strong as ever, a couple extra tracks this time, a bit more variety (Ballads! P.S. Did they clone Paul McCartney whilst on tour and set him working in the back room?). Maybe the only way it suffers really in comparison to the debut is that it was released second and so we're not as blown away by their formula.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 17, 2005 9:20:40 GMT -5
Hey Jesus ... just 'cause
(1) you're the son of god, which means I should cut you some slack;
(2) you've been 'round the boards for more years than I should be able to remember;
(3) you're actually British;
if you want to submit your list today, I'll go ahead and see what effect it would have on the results. I'd love to see Led Zepellin drop in the rankings (notice they weren't in my list either), and I'm curious what a real live servant of the Queen thinks of his homeland's musical output.
And yes ... the inevitable solo discussion will be forthcoming in the near future ...
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 17, 2005 9:23:33 GMT -5
Sex Pistols in 34th place...
What a joke !!
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Oct 17, 2005 9:34:13 GMT -5
Not a bad list, but count me in on...
Every band on that list rocks circles around fucking Zeppelin. Every. Single. One.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 17, 2005 10:03:32 GMT -5
Sex Pistols in 34th place... What a joke !! Yeah, I agree the Pistols should have placed much higher. Otherwise, good job, Ken.  |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 17, 2005 11:24:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree the Pistols should have placed much higher
As a social phenomena, you can place them as high as you want...
Musicaly, they don't even register on the radar !!
Well... Maybe the knives, serynge needles,
metal studs and baby diaper safety pins did !!
|
|
