Classic Rock's 50 Greatest Live Bands Ever
- Thread starter Goreripper
- Start date
Shadow298
UNLEASH THE GUAN
Tool aren't very interesting live. THe visuals etc. are amazing but the band themselves just stand motionless and don't even interact with each other. As for this list, I think Bon Jovi should have been there, and from an Australian perspective, Cold Chisel, Midnight Oil and The Angels would have been shoo-ins.
Hanso
Member
Glad Slayer is there. One of the best bands I have seen live. Even though there not a rock band Strapping Young Lad woul be in my 50 !!! 
Mark
Not blessed, or merciful
The one time I've seen them (way back on the OK Computer tour), they were amazing. Obviously they don't jump about or have zombies playing air guitar onstage with them, but they put on a hell of a show regardless
KoichCPA
Banned
Tool and Slayer were both fucking boring and sterile live.
Muse should be a lot higher on the list
Muse should be a lot higher on the list
chrisvp
Member
Blitzkrieg
Master Exploder
That is what I came back on here to say. They would be amongst the best bands I have seen live. Amazing.
TinMan666
Member
I hate lists.
There's some logical (ie safe) choices in there, some that seem a bit suprising as well though. A few that i thought no one even remembered anymore. Fugazi for example?
First one that screams out to me as something to object to is Hendrix at #4. Every live Hendrix thing i have forced myself to watch has been absolutely diabolical. Of course "Hendrix" is that magic word that works as a "check me out, I know what i'm talking about" trump card, so it was bound to be on the list somewhere to give it some fake credibility.
I am getting way to cynical in my middle age.
There's some logical (ie safe) choices in there, some that seem a bit suprising as well though. A few that i thought no one even remembered anymore. Fugazi for example?
First one that screams out to me as something to object to is Hendrix at #4. Every live Hendrix thing i have forced myself to watch has been absolutely diabolical. Of course "Hendrix" is that magic word that works as a "check me out, I know what i'm talking about" trump card, so it was bound to be on the list somewhere to give it some fake credibility.
I am getting way to cynical in my middle age.
Mark
Not blessed, or merciful
Yeah, I've never seen what the deal is with Hendrix; always figured it was a 'guitarist' thing.
Mind you, it annoys me when people argue that The Beatles were nothing special
Mind you, it annoys me when people argue that The Beatles were nothing special
Iron Zombius
Member
- Sep 6, 2007
- 527
- 0
- 16
As a fan, who do we pay money to see? the guy on the poster, or the dude who is backing guitar for the guy on the poster?
without googling, Name me one....just one person in these "backing" bands that has a name for doing something other that being in a backing band for a solo artist in the list above and I will retract the statement!
100 kids playing recorder on stage at carols by candlelight is a backing band for god sake!
Blitzkrieg
Master Exploder
Hendrix was a pioneer, an important cornerstone for rock music and metal today. That said, I am not a great fan and think he should be down the list.
dreamwatch
Syntax error
Clarence Clemons.
Ultimately though, some of those artists would be as boring as fuck without a 'backing' band. Springsteen could get away with it, but Bowie would have major problems.
FerretallicA
HMAS Slagdestroyer
Do most (see: obviously not all) fans pay to see Children of Bodom or Alexi Laiho? Guns n' Roses (current incarnation) or Axl Rose? The Police or Sting? Foo Fighters or Dave Grohl? Nine Inch Nails or Trent Reznor? Megadeth or Dave Mustaine? Black Label Society or Zakk Wylde? Some of these may not be great examples and there will always be people going for the band as a whole or certain other members of the band as per one's musical preference but does the percentage of attention focused on a 'frontman' invalidate the claim of being a 'band' as opposed to a 'solo artist'?
What about turn-over? Take something like Megadeth where Dave Mustaine is the distinct core of the band and other members come and go with relative regularity. Now take your own example of Bruce Springsteen who has had a pretty much consistant line-up in his band since the mid 70's. Which one is more of a 'solo artist' and which one is more of a 'band'?
FerretallicA
HMAS Slagdestroyer
[edit] fuck, helps when I read other posts first... beaten to it by dreamwatch on Clarence Clemons [/edit]
After all, I don't see Bruce acknowledged as one of the thee most important people in the world
More food for thought: Steve Vai. Is he 'solo artist' or 'band'? Not that I think it is in any way a relevant argument to begin with but if the stand-alone credentials of the other members is any measure as indicated what of Virgil Donati, Tony Macalpine, Jeremy Colson, Billy Sheehan et al? Do the accomplishments of 'backing band' members outside of the musical troupe in question somehow validate it as a band?
In response to Zombius, dreamy could have also mentioned Stevie Van Zandt, Mick Ronson, Eric Singer, Derek Sherinian, Al Pitrelli... anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm sure the definition of "band" used for this list meant "a band of musicians together on stage" whether they go under a group name or that of the band leader.
KoichCPA
Banned
Shadow298
UNLEASH THE GUAN
I'd add The Melvins to the list too.
were friggin awesome live.
especially their drummer going non-stop for 45 minutes.
were friggin awesome live.
especially their drummer going non-stop for 45 minutes.
Hanso
Member
Mick Ronson was critical to Bowie's success IMO. He was also a major influence on Randy Rhoads...
Similar threads
