Quoted from Frightwolf

Is that album a praised one of theirs? I have a very trusty comprehensive review site that has helped me get into different bands, and it got an average rating, but it's just one guy's opinion, so I don't know what the consensus is.

I've only given it a couple of listens, it has its moments. Atome Heart Mother has a few great parts to it but it seems to go on much to long for a pure instrumental. If, Summer '68, and Fat Old Sun would all rate at about a 7/10 and then Alan's Psychedlic Breakfast is an intresting track, which also has its moments. It was worth the 10$ I bought it for, maybe I'll try giving it another listen...

Yea, but maybe that just wasn't the album to get you into them, you know? If I wanted to get somebody into the Beatles, I wouldn't suggest With the Beatles because that's not the most comprehensive, most well-defined album to show what the Beatles were all about.

I've been into Floyd before I was just trying to get back into them with something I haven't heard. I agree with what you said though.

i vote 4 pink floyd cuz they are a really awesome band,
besides Gilmour, Waters, Wright, Mason and Barrett are genius!!
its one of my favorite bands!!

Floyd just shade it over Zep.

The Stones for me.  Especially since they had at least two classic periods: 1965-69 and 1970-1972.  Possibly a third 1977-80.  

Pink Floyd had a classic early period with Syd 1966-68 and 1973-75 (not a fan of the Roger-dominated Animals and the Wall).  

The Who had early maximum R&B singles period 1965-1968, then Tommy/Who's Next in 1969-70.  But the 70s Who is great in places but spotty at times.  I think the Kenny Jones Who . . . well, you know what I mean.

Led Zep III is my favorite album of theirs (because it was done in Memphis) but who doesn't like Black Dog?  But I can't rank them with the Stones, Floyd or Who. There's a sameness to the approach--each guy has his role and sticks to it.  I mean, where's that John Bonham piano solo?

Queen had a lot of "periods"--but seemed more pastiche to me than anything.  I prefer Roxy Music for that sort of thing.

AC/DC is great at crunching power chords (go Malcolm) but too derivative and juvenile.  Although I do sing TNT to my 3 yr old.

The Beach Boys are the big wild card here.  So much talent, so much potential, so much accomplishment that they often get overlooked.  I think Brian Wilson was George Martin's equal as producer (and he wrote the songs too).  They had two classic periods the early 1963-65 and then 1966-69.  They're are some excellent 70s material but its scattered.  

So I'll go Stones with Beach Boys a close second.  Who knows, maybe twenty years from now the Beach Boys will be the great sixties act with Pet Sounds and the restored Smile?

I'd also make a plug for the Velvet Underground's classic period 1965-68 and then 1969-70.  

And Bob Dylan's had at least three classic periods 1962-64, 1965-1967, 1974-76--and maybe even a fourth if you want to count the underrated Christian period and Infidels 1979-82.  I think the 1996-present period is overrated.  

Quoted from adamzero

The Stones for me.  Especially since they had at least two classic periods: 1965-69 and 1970-1972.  Possibly a third 1977-80.  

Pink Floyd had a classic early period with Syd 1966-68 and 1973-75 (not a fan of the Roger-dominated Animals and the Wall).  

The Who had early maximum R&B singles period 1965-1968, then Tommy/Who's Next in 1969-70.  But the 70s Who is great in places but spotty at times.  I think the Kenny Jones Who . . . well, you know what I mean.

Led Zep III is my favorite album of theirs (because it was done in Memphis) but who doesn't like Black Dog?  But I can't rank them with the Stones, Floyd or Who. There's a sameness to the approach--each guy has his role and sticks to it.  I mean, where's that John Bonham piano solo?

Queen had a lot of "periods"--but seemed more pastiche to me than anything.  I prefer Roxy Music for that sort of thing.

AC/DC is great at crunching power chords (go Malcolm) but too derivative and juvenile.  Although I do sing TNT to my 3 yr old.

The Beach Boys are the big wild card here.  So much talent, so much potential, so much accomplishment that they often get overlooked.  I think Brian Wilson was George Martin's equal as producer (and he wrote the songs too).  They had two classic periods the early 1963-65 and then 1966-69.  They're are some excellent 70s material but its scattered.  

So I'll go Stones with Beach Boys a close second.  Who knows, maybe twenty years from now the Beach Boys will be the great sixties act with Pet Sounds and the restored Smile?

I'd also make a plug for the Velvet Underground's classic period 1965-68 and then 1969-70.  

And Bob Dylan's had at least three classic periods 1962-64, 1965-1967, 1974-76--and maybe even a fourth if you want to count the underrated Christian period and Infidels 1979-82.  I think the 1996-present period is overrated.  

The Stones: 1965-69 and 1970-1972. Isn't that one period? Or was there a 3 month gap??

"There's a sameness to the approach--each guy has his role and sticks to it.  I mean, where's that John Bonham piano solo?"

What a ridiculous statement that is. Have you read it?? " Each guy has his role and sticks to it? So fucking what!!! So the Beach Boys were multi instumentalists?

"Queen had a lot of "periods"--but seemed more pastiche to me than anything.  I prefer Roxy Music for that sort of thing."

You're not distinguishing between Pomp, and Art rock. Two completely different bands that should not be compared.

where's that John Bonham piano solo?"

What a ridiculous statement that is. Have you read it?? " Each guy has his role and sticks to it? So fucking what!!! So the Beach Boys were multi instumentalists?

thats funny BLUE MEANIE. Bonzo doing a piano solo! that would be like a lumberjack doing cake decorations     

The first two Stones periods are Brian Jones and then Mick Taylor (Sticky Fingers, Exile).   The third is the Ron Wood period.

The Beach Boys weren't multi-instrumentalists, but Brian would bring in a wide array of session guys to achieve unique sounds on each songs.  I was kidding about the Bonzo piano solo, but the piano is after all a percussion instrument, it'd be interesting to see what he would have done (or at least see him destroy a piano).  It was just a joke.  

I have to admit that Queen never did it for me, although I like some songs.  The same with Roxy, though I like more of their songs.  The connection between the bands is that they're both playing at "rock star" theatrics in a self-conscious way.  Sorta like Bowie.  I would say that I prefer Brian May to Phil Manzanera.  Although I like Brian Ferry's persona better than Freddie Mercury, though each has/had an incredible voice.

Quoted from adamzero

It was just a joke.  

Apologies for my lack of sense of humour! I was having a foul day.

I do hear though, that Bonham played a mean triangle whilst downing a bottle of vodka

Quoted from BlueMeanie

I do hear though, that Bonham played a mean triangle whilst downing a bottle of vodka

Whose head did he play it on?  

hey, how does U2 not make this list? are they not big enough?

Quoted from somedude210

hey, how does U2 not make this list? are they not big enough?

Definately bigger than The Beach Boys and Queen.

i demand a recount! how can ACDC be in there and not U2!?!?

Pink Floyd by far.

I thought you meant "big bands" and I opened this thread all set to praise the Glenn Miller Orchestra!