Ok, name your favourite band.

Give a reason.

Name your favourite song and album by the artist.

Go!!

The Beatles: the most diverse creative memorable collection of songs, blows away any other group with catchy creative power and evolution.

Zeppelin.
For their mesmerizing power and unbelievable chemistry onstage, beautifully crafted melodies, Jimmy's awesome riffs and equally awesome stage presence, Bonzo's thunderous drums, the supertight rhythm section, Plant's vocals and er, blouses and lovely tight pants , for their songs that have withstood the test of time, the light and shade of it all, etc. I could go on and on of course....

Favorite song: is impossible to pick. I guess my favorite song of this WEEK though, would have to be "Four Sticks".

Favorite album: I guess Physical Graffiti



Tough question though, because all of the bands listed are amazing, and also in my top ten favorite bands of all time.

I love all four of them... but I love Funkadelic (Westbound era) the most.

They went so far left that all of the cartoonish nonsense they made actually seems believable. Funkadelic is what a drug induced trip sounds like.

Favorite song: Cosmic Slop (classic riff)
Favorite Album: Let's Take It To the Stage ("What's in the bag, bitch?")

Right now the Stones. Just saw them front row and they rock. That's my reason.

The Beatles

Cause they were basically the pioneers of their own sound and art.

favorite album? Impossible.. most albums are flawless.. but The White Album if I had to choose.. its my all time favorite record. period.

Led Zeppelin

III

Cool album. You get the heavy rock stuff (the first side) and some great acoustic stuff (the second side). "Since I've Been Loving You" is one of my favourite songs ever.

As for the rest:

The Beatles-Rubber Soul/Revolver (these two albums are like one to me. in my opinion that was their peak)

The Roling Stones-Sticky Fingers (hard to pick one, but Sticky Fingers may be their most consistent. honourable mention to Between The Buttons. great pop album)

Funkadelic-Cosmic Slop (I really love that album. it has some stylistic diversity and my favourite Funkadelic song "You Can't Miss What You Can't Measure". Wish they did more like that with multiple lead vocals)

Whoops. I forgot the reason. I dig Zeppelin because of their versatility and consistency. They could play loud and soft equally well. And they never made a bad album. (Yes, even Prescence, give it another listen, people!)

One thing I don't like about the Beatles is they never really rocked out. I would have loved to see them make a heavy metal type album.

The Stones I like more than the Beatles, but sometimes I wish their music was a bit more varied.

Funkadelic is great, I wish there were more bands like them who mixed it up. I would love to hear more groups try everything, which they often did. But they run a distant second to Zeppelin for me.

Oh gosh this is toughie. I'm a huge fan of all of them except Zeppelin (I do like them somewhat). When it comes down to it, I'd probably chose the Beatles since they were the most versatile, the most influential and probably the only one of those four bands (and maybe the only rock band ever) that had more than one certifiable musical genius. Of course the Stones were "badder" and Funkadelic was, well, funkier, but the beatles certainly could be "bad" or funky and I don't think the stones or Funkadelic could do a lot of the things the Beatles could.

The Beatles – by the most of the objective standards that can be used to judge pop music, certainly by the ones that are important to me, (depth of catalogue, melody, inventiveness of instrumental and vocal arrangements) they’re first rate across the board.

And, of course, they invented the notion that rock music could be artistic, adult and thoughtful, and were the first (maybe last/only, though I'm sure some would dispute that) rock group that achieved a broad consensus – they were beloved by everyone from sophisticated elites to housewives.


Album - Difficult to name just one, because they all scratch different itches, but Rubber Soul, The White Album and Abbey Road are the obvious favourites.

Song - if naming an album is difficult, naming a favourite song is pretty much hopeless. A few personal favourites that maybe haven't been played to death:

Julia is just impossibly lovely.
The covers (Money, Twist and Shout, You've Really Got a Hold On Me, Please Mr. Postman) are great, and often overlooked (if it's possible to say that the Beatles have ever been overlooked).
For No One and Here, There and Everywhere are Paul at his most melodic.

This is beautiful.

A proper musical discussion with great posts.

Thank you all for contributing.

Please continue

minneapolisgenius said:

Perfect!

Why is it whenever The Beatles get mentioned all words like important and revolutionary get mentioned, yet very few people seem to have the huge passion for them that the likes of bands like Zeppelin or the Stones get. Seriously are they one band we aren't allowed to dislike, are they above criticism? I for one find them immensely one dimensional, theres no guts to their music, no muscle. It's all to shiny even when they performed old rock n roll standards, they removed the rebellion.

AntonioFargas said:

That album is as tight as funk can get.

WildheartXXX said:

I'd like to address a few things you’ve stated:

1) I certainly don't think there's any lack of passion for Beatles - judging purely by sales (not my favourite barometer, but an easy one to access, and one that happens to support my case), one can see that there's a huge market for them. They were the biggest selling act of 2001, and (I was surprised by this) the second biggest selling act of the soundscan era (http://www.prince.org/msg/8/160919). The fact that their music continues to move off the shelves 35 years after their breakup speaks pretty loudly to the resonance they continue to have.

Are Beatles fans more fervent than Zeppelin or Stones fans? Arsed if I know, but I do know that I’m passionate about the Beatles, and there doesn’t seem to be any lack of people with an interest in them.

2) One dimensional? I don’t think that criticism will hold up, unless you have a general disdain for pop music, which does impose fairly strict limits. Judged against their peers and those that have come after them, the scope of territory they covered is pretty astonishing, and even more impressive when you consider their quality control never really dipped until the end (let it be, and (to a lesser extent) the white album are mediocre in spots). How many bands in 1966 were combining sitar ragas with the blues? How many pop stars have ever been as open, as nakedly emotional as John Lennon was on Julia? How many #1 records contain something as raw as She's so Heavy and as frivolous as Maxwell's Silver Hammer?

The Beatles achieved a level of musical sophistication pretty rare in pop music, and did while maintaining their status as the world’s most popular band. That’s an achievement that I think deserves to be held in high esteem, regardless of whether you care for their music or not.

My two cents, for whatever it’s worth…

Beatles & Stones are actually the only 2 i like on this list. They are the yin and the yang of rock & roll. The two of them together pushed rock to an artform. The Beatles taught it how to be art, while the Stones simultaneously taught it how to actually ROCK.

I'll rate them on a scale from 0 (absolute disgust) to 10 (absolute adoration)

The Beatles: 0
The Stones: 4
Led Zeppelin: 5
Funkadelic: 7.5

Funkadelic wins.

The others just don't suit me.

"Maggot Brain" alone trumps anything in the collective catalog of the other three, if you ask me. But then again, that's probably why no one does ask me.
[Edited 9/19/05 0:04am]

Moonbeam said:

I know you probably get this a lot moonbeam, but I just gotta ask: How much of the Beatles' (or the Stones for that matter) have you actually listened to? Because I personally thought they were extremely overrated for the longest time, but after going back and actually listening to their catalogue in depth they've grown on me, now they're among my favorite bands. I guess you probably get a lot of disdain or incomprehension from people about that, but it is somewhat mind boggling that someone wouldn't have at least one Beatles song that they'd like. I'm a huge Funkadelic fan too, and I think Maggot Brain (the song and the album) are fantastic, among the best made, but I still think the Beatles and the Stones were superior bands and deserve most of the praise they get. For the Beatles I would suggest listening to the albums Rubber Soul through Abbey Road one at a time, and try Aftermath, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers for the Rolling stones. Like em or not, you'd be hard pressed to find very many acts in pop history who haven't done ersatz immitations of them, let alone who haven't been influenced by them.

jacktheimprovident said:

well, that was a waste of a paragraph. i promise you

I choose Zeppelin:

Jimmy Page outplays every guitarist of the other bands.
John Bonham outdrums every drummer of the other bands.
Robert Plant is the best vocalist, ever.
John Paul Jones could play nearly every instrument, so versatile.

They are still the hottest band, even today.

Best album: IV
Favorite song: Going to California

Sdldawn said:

Listening right now! Absolutely fantastic!

Tessa said:

I've noticed that Moonbeam's determined to tilt at windmills anytime the topic of the Beatles comes up.

I don't really have a favourite band, but those I return to the most are The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and the Bee Gees.

Cloudbuster said:

Christopher said:

Did you take the wrong pills again?

damosuzuki said:

And how many bands since then have combined sitar ragas with the blues? Very few because it was an awful sound! I absolutely hate those Beatles songs with the exception of "Norwegian Wood", the rare case where the sitar doesn't overwhelm the song. The other three songs that featured sitar "Love You To", "Within You Without You" and "The Inner Light" are three of the Beatles' absolute worst songs, in my opinion.

And I also agree that compared to their contemporaries (the Stones, the Who, the Kinks, the Animals, Small Faces, the Pretty Things, the Yardbirds et cetera) the Beatles lacked a certain feeling. Undeniably their catalogue is much stronger and more consistent than those bands. But there's something I get from the others that I don't get from the Beatles. I can't explain it very well but the Beatles, for my taste, lacked a certain soul. I think it boils down to the way they played R & B. It just seemed much "cleaner" than the other groups of the era.

Having said all of that I am a huge Beatle fan and love their music. Obviously as far as guitar based pop music goes no one ever did it better than them. I felt I had to respond to the sitar comment because to me those songs (again excepting "Norwegian Wood") hurt the albums they appear on, especially "Within You Without You". It's just too darn long!

rialb said:

To each his own I suppose, I happen to really like Indian music and like what the Beatles and George specifically did with it.

The Stones! Because their new cd is so bloody good!

jacktheimprovident said:

I've listened to some 50 Beatles songs from all eras, and I haven't liked a single one. Not one. I just can't handle their sound- it's way too tinny and bassless and I don't like the vocals either.

That said, I can understand the influence they've had, but I can't get involved in the hoopla of an artist when the music I've heard turns me off.

I will admit to being not too familiar with the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin, but the music I have heard (albeit limited) hasn't given me any urge to pursue an interest.