Ah, but the difference is that your poll specifically asked a "Better" question (which, really, is subjective in itself), while my poll simply stated Group A vs. Group B, in which I indicated my favorite. I never stated who I thought was better- as a matter of fact, my full intention was a "personal preference" poll. Greater and better are too general, anyway. If you're asking me who had a greater impact on music, of course I'm going with Floyd. If you're asking me who played better together as a band, then I'm definitely picking The Smithereens- I've seen both bands live numerous times (to be fair, Pink Floyd only once in person but numerous film clips from the 70s), and there's no question that the Smithereens were a more tight, cohesive band in the only way you can really gauge it- live. Anyone that was around the club scene in the late 80s and early 90s who caught the Smithereens live knows what I'm talking about. My entire point is this: you can easily prove things like who was a more popular band, who had a greater impact, and possibly who were better musicians. But you can't "prove" personal preference, yet many act as if you can. I've been in many of these posts on Amazon, and as soon as you present an unorthodox view like "I like The Cars better than The Beatles," you get lambasted and criticized for being "wrong." Based on the criteria of popularity combined with impact on other musicians, there's no question that Led Zeppelin is "better" than The Who. Zeppelin's record sales figures alone are staggering- their worst-selling studio album, Presence, is equal to the Who's best- Who's Next. Think about that for a minute. As much as Who's Next has been played on the radio, it's only sold the same as Presence. And yes, the Who had an impact on many musicians, including U2, The Clash, etc., but Zeppelin had an influence on Metallica, Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses, Pearl Jam, almost every heavy metal band from the 80s, Heart, Bad Company, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc. The influence may be equal, and the musicianship may be equal, but the popularity is not even close, and I say that as The Who's biggest fan. Influence is a tricky thing, too. If I use that as a criteria, then Buddy Holly trumps The Beatles. Actually, Buddy Holly may be the single biggest influence on the set-up of the rock band than any other artist- no one else even had a set band- not Chuck Berry, not Elvis, not Little Richard, or any of the others. It was Buddy Holly and The Crickets, and they actually often went by The Crickets. Bob Dylan credits him as a key figure in his switch to rock and roll. The Rolling Stones' first single was a Holly cover- "Not Fade Away." The Beatles- obviously, the Crickets and Holly were their biggest influence. And every other "The" band- Animals, Byrds, Yardbirds, Who, Kinks, etc. - is indebted to Holly and The Crickets. But, is Buddy Holly and the Crickets greater than The Beatles? Based on what criteria? Influence? Yes, or possibly. Record sales? No. "Greatest" is indeed not as transparent as it seems because the criteria is even different. I'm not being glib about this, believe me. And "greatest" is all well and good, but it doesn't really mean that much to me in the long run. I would put The Beatles in my top 5 regardless if no one bought their CDs- their excellence is obvious even without the hype. But Cream isn't even in my top 100- I differ from the large, large majority of individuals when I say I have never gotten into their music and probably never will. White Room, Sunshine of Your Love, Badge do absolutely nothing for me. Yet, they're a critically acclaimed band. Go figure. So, yes, Pink Floyd had a greater impact on music, and thus would be categorized as greater. But my poll was never about that. I was curious to see if even anyone chose the Smithereens as a favorite, and surprise, more than 1 did so. Beatles vs. Stones, Zep vs. The Who- those arguments have been going on forever, and to be honest, they're tiring because they're too close to call. I'm more interested in why someone would have a lesser-known band as a favorite. I'm much more fascinated by a Led Zeppelin vs. Foghat poll- now THERE'S an interesting one you won't see in most places!
^ dando, I see where you are coming from. I guess I am more interested in seeing what people feel is the better band but it being 2 bands, that in my mind, are very close. I am completely aware that Zeppelin has had more commercial success than The Who but if we took that factor away and looked at factors of musicianship, live performances, songwriting, impact, etc., to me they should be close to each other. One thing that really fascinates me with music in general is artists that are looked upon favorably from a critical point of view but never obtained commercial success. Then they decide to change philosophies or their sound, they get commercial success and are labelled sell-outs by their old fans. This happened with Genesis, as you won't find many Gabriel-led Genesis fans that likes the later era Genesis led by Phil Collins (I'm one of the few but you shouldn't be surprised by that!). Another great example was Liz Phair who was on top of the world in the indie community with her 1st 3 albums. Then for her fourth album, she hooks up with the people that are writing pop songs for Avril Lavigne, of all people, and her songs definitely have that polished sheen to them (even her voice sounds different). She got the commercial success she wanted but it cost her career with her old fans and the critics. I read a John Wetton interview the other day and the one thing that I really took from it was that he was craving commercial success. Here's a guy that is an absolutely phenomenal bass player and proved that with his tenures in Family, Wishbone Ash, Uriah Heep, King Crimson, Roxy Music/Bryan Ferry, and UK. But none of those groups were commercial successes, so then he gets with Steve Howe of Yes, Geoff Downes also of Yes and the Buggles, and Carl Palmer of ELP to form Asia. They release their self-titled album in '82 and I believe it was awarded "Album of the Year" by Billboard and 2 of the singles off that album reached the top 20 on the pop charts in "Heat of the Moment" and "Only Time Will Tell". So he obtained the commercial success he was looking for but when people talk about Asia now, they make jokes about them (see the movie "The Forty Year Old Virgin" to fully understand this). Why is that? Did Wetton really "sell out" just because people were finally buying the records he was playing on or did he change his style to pander to an audience that has no clue who Uriah Heep or Wishbone Ash are? So you have those examples and then you look at someone like Radiohead - their first album notwithstanding, they have produced a body of work, that in my mind, will stand the test of time. 40 years from now, people will be looking at their albums like we look at the Beatles now. Yet, Radiohead is really not a commercial band - you won't find any of their songs on top 40 radio stations. Yet, they don't care and they keep doing well for themselves. To me, these are the artists that are truly special because they did what they wanted to do, not what someone else wanted. You don't find many of these groups around because for the most part, if they don't change their sound, they fade into oblivion. I'm rambling now, so I will shut up. :grin:
Oh, that one's easy- money. Radiohead is fortunate enough to have created CDs that sell well. You'd be surprised at the number of acclaimed groups who were threatened with being dropped from their record label if they didn't produce hits. Aerosmith, in spite of all their great 70s recordings, were forced to work with outside songwriters in the 80s- it was not their choice. Same with Heart, same with Cheap Trick, same with Loverboy, etc. And all because each of them had one CD that sold slightly less (Aerosmith's Done With Mirrors, Heart's Private Audition, etc.). There are the rare exceptions like Springsteen, Radiohead, U2, etc.- but the large majority had this hanging over their head in the 80s. I actually spoke about this with a singer from an 80s band who knows a lot of people in the industry, as well as with someone on the corporate side of the industry who discovered Cypress Hill - corporate control of artists has always been there, but it was especially vicious in the 80s. Most artists don't make as much as you think, even some of the acclaimed ones. It's always a struggle and that's why you see some license their songs out even though they really don't want to. That's why some turn dramatically to a commercial sound. They'll say it's because of other reasons, but it's ultimately about money. Heck, that's what the song Pork and Beans from Weezer is all about- they were giving him hell because he wasn't producing enough "hits" for the record company. Like I said, those Beatles vs. Stones, Zeppelin vs. Who, Allmans vs. Skynyrd have been going on for decades, and it ultimately comes down to some people are Who people, some are Zep. Some are Stones, some are Beatles. I remember others which were much closer back then they are now: Yes vs. Pink Floyd (in the 70s, Yes would get as many votes in the Battle of the Band contest the local radio station used to have; now, it's not close). The Eagles vs. Fleetwood Mac Rush vs. Led Zeppelin Bruce Springsteen vs. Bob Seger (also close in the 70s) Styx vs. REO Speedwagon The Doors vs. Jethro Tull Black Sabbath vs. Deep Purple
Maybe we should have some threads (by no means am I going to start them!) that ask - who was greater: Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stones Zeppelin vs. The Beatles The Who vs. The Rolling Stones I would predict that this board would go Zep, Beatles, Stones but they may surprise me and pick Zep over the Beatles, who knows?
Like I mentioned, I've been seeing those debates for years. Unfortunately, they very rarely reveal anything we don't already know. Now, give me The Rolling Stones vs. INXS- that's one I want to see! Or The Who vs. U2, or The Beatles vs. R.E.M., or Pink Floyd vs. Radiohead- big band in decade 1 vs. big band in a different decade.
Pink Floyd versus Radiohead would actually be very interesting to do and see how it turns out. The others?? Not as much.
If Manny, dandorotik and CB Fan club owned a record store: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1GIGcWLwSDQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1GIGcWLwSDQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Of course they would- U2 would probably win over The Who, mostly because of the "more recent" factor, REM- while certainly not winning any contests over The Beatles, has a very, very strong following, and I'll admit that, normally, INXS would have no chance against any poll involving the Stones. But INXS is a very, very underrated band and Kick was a monster album that had 7-8 cuts in constant rotation on the radio- maybe the Stones vs. Guns & Roses.
Nah, I'm a product of the 60s, 70s, and 80s- it'd be more like this: <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mNGIg8f-0Wc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mNGIg8f-0Wc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
The Brick in the Wall <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VZbM_MIz4RM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VZbM_MIz4RM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> and The Wall of Sleep <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UNZbP3ZVem4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UNZbP3ZVem4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Have a Cigar <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KUDpc04r_QM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KUDpc04r_QM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Cigarette <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qdI-l5aTEaM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qdI-l5aTEaM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Good find! Although I prefer the studio CDs- tribute stuff just doesn't do it for me, although they did very good versions of several songs. Brain Damage <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T1bgxfxchkQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T1bgxfxchkQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> War For My Mind <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1cibaonGqk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d1cibaonGqk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I think your heart was in the right place trying to give the smithereens some love. But you should have picked a more beatable target. Pink Floyd is a band on a lot of people's musical Mt.Rushmore (mine included). Don't go for the 1 v 16 upset, it never happens
Don't tell that to the great underdogs in history!! 1994 Denver Nuggets 1970 New York Jets (notice I left off North Carolina State- please don't let me relive that!!) (besides, this was just about personal preference, not about impact on music. I think I'd have to have Brain Damage to not acknowledge the group among these 2 with the greatest impact on music.) Don't any of you have a favorite band who is marginally popular, you don't think they get the recognition they deserve, yet when you compare them to an all-time legend, they're really not that different? Or not that much lesser, perhaps? They're sorta miles apart, musically, but then again, Pink Floyd rocked out on some songs, and the 'Reens have some ethereal stuff. I could have used any number of underrated bands- Replacements, etc. The 'Reens just happened to be the band I'm listening to the most at the moment. Isn't it funny, though, that the Smithereens have a higher percentage in this poll than the Who does in theirs? Very unexpected- I really expected there to be 1, maybe 2 votes. Weird.
Nobody Home <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TIEma4NAc9w?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TIEma4NAc9w?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> House We Used to Live In <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iZz2vLUt1Ek?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iZz2vLUt1Ek?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I don't know which band is better, but I know which band Buddy Holly would have preferred listening to if he had lived long enough to hear both of them. I voted for the Smithereens.
I think there's a definite bias towards the longer, "epic" songs as being the best of all time. I'm probably one of the few that prefers Hard Day's Night to Sgt. Pepper- I like the orchestral stuff, but there's something about the immediacy of the 3/4-minute single- and some of those were just as "epic" to me. The 80s had tons of what I would call "Epic Singles": <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TU3-lS_Gryk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TU3-lS_Gryk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wT6Lv5iBsLM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wT6Lv5iBsLM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Sx-CAsiw8c?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Sx-CAsiw8c?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG1NrQYXjLU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG1NrQYXjLU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7aK5mwVI7fc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7aK5mwVI7fc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5wxubRFpVU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5wxubRFpVU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RS_ux2H473I?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RS_ux2H473I?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
And there's just something terrific about an underdog- we all owe this team our gratitude: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6XGt25SRmdg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6XGt25SRmdg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> And let's not forget the team who wasn't favored in ANY PLAYOFF SERIES: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PW4z9tY9ewQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PW4z9tY9ewQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I'm guessing that explains it. Look the 'Reens' (that is just awful) is good stuff, but it's just not on the level of reaching the masses the way Floyd is. That's not to say which is 'better' or worse, but just that it is. Seriously though, Floyd can be more polarizing than someone like Zeppelin. There are some folks who just don't like them, or WON'T. Zep isn't so much like that. I like me some Yes, too. I'm equally likely, if not more so, to put some Yes on than I am some Floyd. Big fan of both though. And yes to your "don't some of you have favorite bands blah blah", but do the polls and comparisons help? I really don't care if others agree with my musical tastes. Discussions are good, but the poll results? pfft. Too personal. In fact, the more bad music I get recommended to me, the more I think it's good if people don't like the same things I do. A lot of people don't like Syd Barrett tunes. They're some of my favorites. Hey, Ho, Huff the Talbot!
