BOSTON vs. KANSAS

BOSTON vs. KANSAS

  • BOSTON

    Votes: 12 38.7%
  • KANSAS

    Votes: 19 61.3%

  • Total voters
    31

Bryan316

METAL... nuff said!
The ultimate classic rock debate.


Okya, maybe not ultimate in your minds but in my twisted version of reality mixed with my fantastical bizzaro world where sea monkeys can climb vegetables I'd have to say this is the ultimate when it comes to debating classic rock bands that everyone knows even Hellen Keller.




GO.
 
Kansas without even thinking about it. Boston is awesome...but basically had one album in them. Kansas is simply amazing with a string of great albums & amazing music.

I never understood Kansas being considered in the same breath as Boston & Journey...Kansas was a Prog band...
 
Yeah, what Pelata said. Kansas has longevity and evolution. Boston had a couple of good records and then a long career of reliving the past.

I don't have a problem lumping Kansas in with Boston or Journey .... or Styx or even Rush for that matter .... They were contemporaries, all played by the same radio stations, all in the same charts, and I'd imagine lots of crossover fan bases.

Ken
 
Kansas without even thinking about it. Boston is awesome...but basically had one album in them. Kansas is simply amazing with a string of great albums & amazing music.

I never understood Kansas being considered in the same breath as Boston & Journey...Kansas was a Prog band...

Ya, many of Kansas's albums were prog-oriented and they only had a few radio hits compared to the several Boston did.

I voted for Kansas... I mean I'm from there and everything.
 
Kansas - not even close, IMO. Kansas, to me, was a rock band with prog tendencies, but I wouldn't classify them as a classic prog band. Kansas has alway been a great live band with great performers in every incarnation. Boston may have had a better chance if they released an album more than once a decade.
 
I have to go with Boston--there's simply more of their stuff I know and love.

Sorry for whoever said Kansas was boring live--I was them years ago with Bryant down in Columbus, and they were pretty darn good, I thought. *shrug* Then again, David what's-his-name came out and played violin with them since he lived in the area although he wasn't in the band at that moment. Ragsdale, wasn't it? Anyway, it was pretty cool to my recollection, although Bryant can correct me if I'm wrong. :D

Shaye
 
I have to go with Boston--there's simply more of their stuff I know and love.

Sorry for whoever said Kansas was boring live--I was them years ago with Bryant down in Columbus, and they were pretty darn good, I thought. *shrug* Then again, David what's-his-name came out and played violin with them since he lived in the area although he wasn't in the band at that moment. Ragsdale, wasn't it? Anyway, it was pretty cool to my recollection, although Bryant can correct me if I'm wrong. :D

Shaye

Yes, David Ragsdale.
 
Love 'em both. But, the edge goes to BOSTON. I know way more of their stuff and I'm a vocal oriented person in my classic rock and BOSTON's harmonies are second to none. Their songs are criminally catchy and IMO, they were far ahead of their time production and mix wise.
 
Boston for me, no one can touch Delps vox (RIP) he is an icon!!!And Schulz' writing was paramount back then as well, to bad he is such a dick...

Bear
 
I voted for Kansas because I think they have the better team by far and can beat Boston, unless Boston comes up with a better pass defense......

.....oh, this is about the two bands?




Nevermind.

:lol:





(and I did vote for Kansas. Not that Boston weren't a great band, but Kansas and their more prog offerings seemed to 'mean' more to me....)
 
Boston, for me. NOT EVEN CLOSE!! The first 4 albums were masterpieces, IMO - even though they took 20 years to get out!! Tom Scholz is a genius and makes the guitar sound like no other - and all analog!!

Chris :headbang: