Name a single band that you think is better than any one of these three: The Who, Queen, CCR. Covers all spectrums. I'd love to know a band these days that could compare to them, because then I SERIOUSLY need to start listening to them, but from what I've heard, nothing is even 10,000 miles near the ball park.

CRJ - Why don't you look for some for yourself?

What with the internet and all it is now easier than it ever has been to find music, with the plethora of blogs and websites out there dedicated to finding new music, there are literally millions of artists out there for you to very easily find, listen to and enjoy. There's never been a better time to be a music fan.

It's impossible to try and find a band better than those 3 because music is subjective. If we found a band we like better, you'd just say 'well IMO they suck' and move on. What are you trying to prove?

Radiohead. The White Stripes. Wilco. Modest Mouse. Gorillaz.

you've raised those bands up so high in your mind that nothing will touch them. its musical-cultural nostalgia mixed with idolatry. we see those bands sitting up at the top of lists and hear them on the radio and we start to put them on a pedestal. explain to me what makes those bands better than the ones i just named.

and that's not even taking into consideration that "rock bands" aren't the dominate form of music right now. i'll take Eminem's first three albums or Outkast's discography over anything CCR ever did (and i'm a big CCR fan in fact). and at this point, i think Pearl Jam's discography stands up pretty close to The Who's (cue Clash freaking out). The Who had higher artistic peaks, but overall i think PJ is pretty close. i would argue Nirvana's peak was far far far ahead of any of the three bands you named, and really more comparable to the peak's of Dylan or The Beatles.

Modest Mouse? Really? REALLY?
I'll admit I'm bias, I know that, and you guys seem to have significantly different perceptions of musical prowess than me, but mentioning Modest Mouse around those 3 names is an insult. If you want to look me in the face, and tell me that Modest Mouse had a more skilled vocalist, guitarist, and drummer than Queen, and then tell me they used more creative and original instrument use and sound blending/recording to a more creative extent, I'd like to say who agrees with you.

My criteria was: Skill, originality, creativity in the form of musical composition, and emotion in the songs. If you can look me in the face and say "Modest Mouse has more skilled instrumentalists and vocalist than Queen, was more creative in their musical experimentation and pushing the limits of instrumental uses, had more original sound and music, and they used more complex technique/theory in their songs than Queen, so they are on par or better than Queen", be my guest. If you can say it and MEAN it, then that's no longer an opinion of liking their music, that's just a false statement.

Are any of Modest Mouse' instrumentalists anywhere near as skilled? No.
Do they use complex techniques beyond basic chords/progression, basic solo's, or anything of the complexity of some of Brian May's solo's or instrument use? No.
Do they compose music that uses as complex theory as Queen's? Possibly, I haven't heard all their stuff but I doubt it.
Do they have the same amount of emotion or feeling? Up to interpretation, but if you can tell me they wrote a song that has more emotion and power than Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love, Who wants to Live Forever, We are the Champions, etc. Be my guest, I doubt you could say that and feel good inside.


And for Nirvana being near the peak of the Beatles? I don't know, I don't think you had millions the world over worshipping Nirvana's music and making it a daily part of societal life. I was alive then, my parents were alive during Nirvana, and the Beatles, and you cannot compare the popularity or influence, that was just a stupid statement.

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

You're not a troll are you?

That's not what it was about. You told us to find bands we thought were 'better' than the 3 you mentioned. pave did exactly what you asked. Why are you suddenly so fucking aggressive?



What the fuck is this drivel? Once again, you asked for us to find bands that WE thought were BETTER than the 3 you mentioned. Not greater ones. Not more skilled ones. Ones that WE LIKED MORE. What the fuck does ANY of that have to do with it? And btw, the bold is SUBJECTIVE. I'm a huge Queen fan, and I don't find any of their songs particularly emotional.



"Wah! Wah! I can't deal with other peoples' opinions and think mine trumps everybody else's!

CRJ, i see your points and they are valid and true to your heart, and i agree with a few things you've written, just try and be a bit more flexible. Some Classic rock bands in my opinion are better than many today but its subjective. Id personally take CCR, The Who, Beatles, Stones, Zep and a few others over White Stripes, Modest Mouse, Wilco, maybe even Radiohead etc but many younger fans on here may not,you have to respect their opinions too, its not black and white.

two things.

1. "skill" is completely irrelevant (at least the way people use the word today, which is to denote physical difficulty rather than creativity)
2. the amount of people who love something is irrelevant to its artistic value. sure, Nirvana were not as popular as The Beatles. by the same token, CCR was not as popular as Nirvana.

NO band will ever be as popular because the musical landscape has changed. radio formatting, the internet, personalization in all walks of life, etc. these things make it a guarantee that nothing will be as popular as it was in the 50s and 60s. we aren't as connected. we don't have 4 stations. we don't have a national collective consciousness. a person can listen to new music every day and never even hear the number 1 hit in the country.

I completely agree, I don't think I've argued against any of those points.

Okay, triple post here, just to get this out because now people think I don't respect bands if people don't like the bands I like.


I was talking about 'greatest', not what you like more. I am very open minded to what everyone likes, and you can like whatever you like and that's fine. It's your choice and preference to prefer certain music. If you think I was saying you can't like these bands as much as Classic rock ones, that's not at all what I was trying to say. However, liking and 'respecting' are two different things. Let me rephrase that, the band you 'like/prefer', and the band that you know is more 'talented' (which consists of a lot more than skill, it involves, as we've said, creativity, originality, complex/complementary composition, feeling, etc.). I have a friend who loves Rage Against the Machine and hates the Beatles with a passion. I don't get mad at him for it, because he knows, and has stated, "the Beatles are a much greater and more talented band with better musicians (from a lyrical and compositional standpoint, not as much skill), and I know they are the better band, and I respect them, but I don't like them as much, their music is not as appealing to me" I'm fine with that, now if he said "Rage Against the Machine's writes better music and more original/creative songs with better lyrics than the Beatles ever have", I'd just say he's wrong, though that 'could', to some extent be an opinion, I would strongly disagree with it's validity.

Maybe it's where I am, but I don't know a SINGLE person who listens to Nirvana, or really 'loves' them, everyone still likes the Beatles though. You may be right, there is no way to tell what happens in the future, this is just my prediction, because Beatles, Beach Boys, and Zeppelin songs are still played everywhere (I'm NOT talking about radio, because you can find anything on the radio if you have XM), and Nirvana and REM songs have been getting much less play, where, at least in my area, I've noticed a major increase of 60's/70's songs emerging again, and everyone I know agrees those songs are timeless. Maybe Teen Spirit and others will be too, but I doubt they will remain as long as Like a Rolling Stone, Hey Jude, Baba O'Reily, Stairway to Heaven, etc. This is just my opinion, you can think it's stupid, but we'll see, a lot of songs that were hugely popular back then in the same way Teen Spirit may have been are gone now. How many of you have heard of "Little Green Apples" or "Volare"? Both are great songs, and had a HUGE popularity back in the day, but neither survived the mainstream test of time. Teen Spirit charted 1, but I think it was more of a times thing than a international revolution.

I don't know this, but how popular was Nirvana worldwide? Just curious

Yeah, but he says himself, he HATES the Beatles. Don't know how it's possible, but it's his opinion so...