Just wondering who would win a poll out of some of the most popular bands ever. I left the Beatles out for obvious reasons



My vote goes to The Stones

i said floyd, of those choices, i like them the most

hmmm..it's a hard one between the stones and led zep, but i chose the stones

The Stones have a lot of great stuff, but I've been really impressed with the Who albums I've purchased recently.

The Beach Boys had some nice stuff, but their only consistant album seems to be Pet Sounds  

Speaking of Pet Sounds did anyone get the 40th anniversery reissue, and which is the version to get?

Quoted from Frightwolf

The Beach Boys had some nice stuff, but their only consistant album seems to be Pet Sounds  

That's not true. Check out these albums:
- The Beach Boys Today! (1965)
- Friends (196
- Sunflower (1970)

Quoted from ma_tt2

Speaking of Pet Sounds did anyone get the 40th anniversery reissue, and which is the version to get?

I got both the CD + DVD version and the 2LP version of the 40th anniversary edition... It's nothing new really. Just slightly different mixes (you have to be a real audio freak to hear the difference), and the DVD is compiled of mostly previous released material.

The version to get... If you're a casual fan the regular version will do... Or get the one with the stereo and the mono mixes... Most purists prefer the original mono mix because that's the way Brian Wilson wanted the world to hear it back in 1966, but I prefer the stereo remix because it sounds so much better when you listen to it over your headphones. If you really love the album, get the "Pet Sounds Sessions" box. It's not cheap, but it's really fascinating. It's got the original mono mix, a stereo remix, the instrumental backing track, the a capella mix and recording session highlights of every single song on the album, plus a whole bunch of alternate versions.

led zep

Quoted from 197

led zep

You forgot to vote

Quoted from Joost

That's not true. Check out these albums:
- The Beach Boys Today! (1965)
- Friends (196
- Sunflower (1970)

I have them

I didn't find them as consistant.  I remember every song on Pet Sounds, and they're beautiful, but I can't say the same for those.  It's just so easy to fall in love with Pet Sounds than it is the other albums, but when I think consistant, I think Beatles quality control -- every song, or just about every song, is special and hard to forget.  Pet Sounds has that kind of quality.  I guess Today! would be closer to it than other albums, but it's not of Beatles consistency.

I voted Zeppelin also. I love the Beach Boys, Who, & Stones but could do without Floyd (uber sick of them), Queen, and AC/DC who I despise.

The Beach Boys are easily my all-time favorite band. I listen to their music more often than to all other music combined.
I like Queen.
I think the Stones are overrated.
I HATE AC/DC.
I never really cared much for the other bands in the list.

Quoted from Frightwolf

I didn't find them as consistant.  I remember every song on Pet Sounds, and they're beautiful, but I can't say the same for those.  It's just so easy to fall in love with Pet Sounds than it is the other albums, but when I think consistant, I think Beatles quality control -- every song, or just about every song, is special and hard to forget.  Pet Sounds has that kind of quality.  I guess Today! would be closer to it than other albums, but it's not of Beatles consistency.

Pet Sounds is my favorite BB album as well, but I think the other three albums I listed are all pretty damn close to Pet Sounds. But that's of course a matter of taste.

And to be honest, I don't think any of the Beatles' albums are totally consistent either.

I voted for AC/DC because they're one of the last great rock & roll bands that had an impact on me during my youth back in the 70's.  They might make the same album all the time as some have said, but the Stones have as well for over 40 years & Back In Black is a rock masterpiece with few equals.  

sadly, i'm the only one that likes floyd better than the others listed...

Quoted from ma_tt2

You forgot to vote

did i not? well it won't let me vote again, and i seem to remember voting..weird

Quoted from Joost

Pet Sounds is my favorite BB album as well, but I think the other three albums I listed are all pretty damn close to Pet Sounds. But that's of course a matter of taste.

And to be honest, I don't think any of the Beatles' albums are totally consistent either.

Well, the first part's true, but I disagree with your last statement.  I feel that the consistancy displayed on Revolver, Abbey Road, and Sgt. Pepper is only rivaled by that of Pet Sounds.  On top of that, I feel that the great songs on those three albums outweigh the greater songs on the albums you mentioned.  Are they bad BB albums? Of course not.  But, while they're good, it's harder for me to name stand-out tunes on them.

I would say Summer Days would outdo Today! if only for the superior version of Help Me Rhonda and Calfornia Girls... but they're both pretty similar, I think.  I'd have to give them another listen.

Quoted from tkitna

I voted Zeppelin also. I love the Beach Boys, Who, & Stones but could do without Floyd (uber sick of them), Queen, and AC/DC who I despise.

Same here i don't know why..i used to listen to them really often..i listen to some floyd occasionally but i can't too much cause i get bored in no time...maybe cause it doesn't rock enough i don't know lol

Quoted from Frightwolf

Well, the first part's true, but I disagree with your last statement.  I feel that the consistancy displayed on Revolver, Abbey Road, and Sgt. Pepper is only rivaled by that of Pet Sounds.  On top of that, I feel that the great songs on those three albums outweigh the greater songs on the albums you mentioned.  Are they bad BB albums? Of course not.  But, while they're good, it's harder for me to name stand-out tunes on them.

I would say Summer Days would outdo Today! if only for the superior version of Help Me Rhonda and Calfornia Girls... but they're both pretty similar, I think.  I'd have to give them another listen.

Today! is a brilliant album... Side A takes the energetic rock & roll sound of the earlier albums to a new level, side B is more or less a prequel to Pet Sounds. I agree that the version of Help Me R(h)onda on that album is inferior though. But apart from that "Bull Sessions" nonsense, there isn't any filler on the album, which can't be said of "Summer Days".

I don't think the Beatles ever released an 100% consistant album, to be honest. Maybe Pepper if Within You Without You wouldn't have been on it.

Quoted from Joost

Today! is a brilliant album... Side A takes the energetic rock & roll sound of the earlier albums to a new level, side B is more or less a prequel to Pet Sounds. I agree that the version of Help Me R(h)onda on that album is inferior though. But apart from that "Bull Sessions" nonsense, there isn't any filler on the album, which can't be said of "Summer Days".

I don't think the Beatles ever released an 100% consistant album, to be honest. Maybe Pepper if Within You Without You wouldn't have been on it.

You don't think With The Beatles, Revolver & Abbey Road, just to name a few, aren't consistent as classic rock albums?

They're definately classic rock albums, but they all have their flaws too. Even the best Beatles albums all have a track or two that's not on the same level as the rest.

agreed, sgt. peppers was a masterpiece but WYWY just wasnt as good as the rest of the album. revolver was great too but Love You To would probably be the song that brought it down from perfection.

I thought you couldn't have flaws when it comes to opinions politically or anything else on this site BP, unless it goes with everybody else here since I have been attacked constantly for no reason at all.  I think Sgt. Pepper is highly overrated with only a few great tracks on it & the White Album is the Beatles true masterpiece.

wayne, we're just saying that they werent perfect. they're great albums, just not perfect. dont get into a hissy fit about this wayne, we accept all opinions but when it comes to you and politics, we disagree which is a good thing. its no fun if everyone agrees all the time

LOL.  You're funny.

wayne, make an answer that doesnt sound like you're on something. and seriously, dont respond with something like "well i think you're the one thats on something Somedude210. You think everything in the world is wrong unless its run by those liberal, wacko nutjobs" cause that just makes you more foolish than you are

Quoted from Wayne L.

I thought you couldn't have flaws when it comes to opinions politically or anything else on this site BP, unless it goes with everybody else here since I have been attacked constantly for no reason at all.  I think Sgt. Pepper is highly overrated with only a few great tracks on it & the White Album is the Beatles true masterpiece.

On every occassion I 'attacked' you I had a good reason. Please read that "Best of Wayne L." topic for undenyable evidence.

And now, back on topic please. If you want to attack me personally, please use my mailbox in the mailboxes forum and not the music forums.

Quoted from Joost

Today! is a brilliant album... Side A takes the energetic rock & roll sound of the earlier albums to a new level, side B is more or less a prequel to Pet Sounds. I agree that the version of Help Me R(h)onda on that album is inferior though. But apart from that "Bull Sessions" nonsense, there isn't any filler on the album, which can't be said of "Summer Days".

I don't think the Beatles ever released an 100% consistant album, to be honest. Maybe Pepper if Within You Without You wouldn't have been on it.

Well, take Revolver -- I would say Good Day Sunshine and Yellow Submarine are weaker.  However, they're still memorable and different, so the album as a whole doesn't suffer, making it very consistant.

There are songs on every Beach Boys album, excluding Pet Sounds, that are just fillerish or simply alright, but nothing I couldn't live without, per se.  Bull Sessions really kills the consistency since it's completely useless.  It's arguably one of their best albums, granted, but that track is a dumb way to end the album.  It's not just a weaker track; it's superfluous.

With Pet Sounds, each track is 1) A good, solid track with memorable melody, 2) A great track, and/or 3) A track that fits the awesome mood of the entire album.  Because of this, it's extremely consistant in its quality.  I don't feel that way for any of the other Beach Boys albums.  I do, however, feel that way for a good handful of Beatles albums.

Quoted from somedude210

agreed, sgt. peppers was a masterpiece but WYWY just wasnt as good as the rest of the album. revolver was great too but Love You To would probably be the song that brought it down from perfection.

I'll have to disagree, in particular Love You To, which I can really headbang too despite its simplicity and the fact that it's one of George's indian tunes.  It's actually a great track, I think; I'd say it was his best sitar song.  WYWY is of lower quality, but it's still not a bad tune and doesn't taint the great stuff the other songs offer.

Im so sick of Pink Floyd for some reason, I use to love them. I even picked up an album I haven't heard from them (Atom Heart Mother) and I still couldn't get into them.

Quoted from ma_tt2

Im so sick of Pink Floyd for some reason, I use to love them. I even picked up an album I haven't heard from them (Atom Heart Mother) and I still couldn't get into them.

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.

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.