Is there a better band than AC/DC?

[bobcollum]

Did a prog rocker run over your dog or something?

 

[Shogun]

nope, it's an honest observation. Here, i'll go ahead and bold the album and year after which the world stopped giving a shit about the band Rush.

Rush (1974)
Fly by Night (1975)
Caress of Steel (1975)
2112 (1976)
A Farewell to Kings (1977)
Hemispheres (1978)
Permanent Waves (1980)
Moving Pictures (1981)
Signals (1982)
Grace Under Pressure (1984)
Power Windows (1985)
Hold Your Fire (1987)
Presto (1989)
Roll the Bones (1991)
Counterparts (1993)
Test for Echo (1996)
Vapor Trails (2002)
Feedback (EP) (2004)
Snakes & Arrows (2007)
Clockwork Angels (2012)

 

[IGetItAlready]

nope, it's an honest observation. Here, i'll go ahead and bold the album and year after which the world stopped giving a shit about the band Rush.

Rush (1974)
Fly by Night (1975)
Caress of Steel (1975)
2112 (1976)
A Farewell to Kings (1977)
Hemispheres (1978)
Permanent Waves (1980)
Moving Pictures (1981)
Signals (1982)
Grace Under Pressure (1984)
Power Windows (1985)
Hold Your Fire (1987)
Presto (1989)
Roll the Bones (1991)
Counterparts (1993)
Test for Echo (1996)
Vapor Trails (2002)
Feedback (EP) (2004)
Snakes & Arrows (2007)
Clockwork Angels (2012)

I started losing interest with Presto but Hold Your Fire and everything prior was AWESOME!!!

 

[manifold]

I couldn't name a stryper song. Don't be mad at me because your shitty favorite band hasn't seen success since the early 80s. Consider the source, indeed.

yeah, no success at all, unless you count the 3rd most consecutive gold/platinum albums by any band ever, behind the Beatles and the Stones.

If only they could sell out Christian rock concerts like Slayer.

Maybe you need to put your bifocals on if you want to retort, gravy train. Besides a handful of radio tracks during an age of record albums hinging on the oh so ostentatious "progressive" rock Rush may have sold records (which even shitty bands have managed to do) back in the 70s and early 80s but they haven't done shit since. And, to be honest, haven't really had much of an impact on music other than paving the way for audio crap bands like Dream Theatre.

Your fanboy hardon is noted and, summarily, disregarded. But please, keep tossing out 80s bands as if your skullet sill rocks, ROCKS!

Google 'Clockwork Angels' and maybe you won't look like such an ignoramus.

Maybe

 

[HUGGY]

yeah, no success at all, unless you count the 3rd most consecutive gold/platinum albums by any band ever, behind the Beatles and the Stones.

If only they could sell out Christian rock concerts like Slayer.

Maybe you need to put your bifocals on if you want to retort, gravy train. Besides a handful of radio tracks during an age of record albums hinging on the oh so ostentatious "progressive" rock Rush may have sold records (which even shitty bands have managed to do) back in the 70s and early 80s but they haven't done shit since. And, to be honest, haven't really had much of an impact on music other than paving the way for audio crap bands like Dream Theatre.

Your fanboy hardon is noted and, summarily, disregarded. But please, keep tossing out 80s bands as if your skullet sill rocks, ROCKS!

Google 'Clockwork Angels' and maybe you won't look like such an ignoramus.

Maybe

Made it 2:21 into "Clockwork angels" headache started. Had to break it off.

 

[Toro]

nope, it's an honest observation. Here, i'll go ahead and bold the album and year after which the world stopped giving a shit about the band Rush.

Rush (1974)
Fly by Night (1975)
Caress of Steel (1975)
2112 (1976)
A Farewell to Kings (1977)
Hemispheres (1978)
Permanent Waves (1980)
Moving Pictures (1981)
Signals (1982)
Grace Under Pressure (1984)
Power Windows (1985)
Hold Your Fire (1987)
Presto (1989)
Roll the Bones (1991)
Counterparts (1993)
Test for Echo (1996)
Vapor Trails (2002)
Feedback (EP) (2004)
Snakes & Arrows (2007)
Clockwork Angels (2012)

All the albums up to Test for Echo (1996) were either Gold or Platinum in the US. Apparently, Snakes & Arrows went to #3 on US charts, though I'm not sure how they get that.

Rush discography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways, Rush is awesome.

[youtube]rYkUre8FWIQ[/youtube]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

nope, it's an honest observation. Here, i'll go ahead and bold the album and year after which the world stopped giving a shit about the band Rush.

Rush (1974)
Fly by Night (1975)
Caress of Steel (1975)
2112 (1976)
A Farewell to Kings (1977)
Hemispheres (1978)
Permanent Waves (1980)
Moving Pictures (1981)
Signals (1982)
Grace Under Pressure (1984)
Power Windows (1985)
Hold Your Fire (1987)
Presto (1989)
Roll the Bones (1991)
Counterparts (1993)
Test for Echo (1996)
Vapor Trails (2002)
Feedback (EP) (2004)
Snakes & Arrows (2007)
Clockwork Angels (2012)

Your right.
I thought Rush was great when I was young...right up there with Boston, Floyd, Aerosmith etc....but by mid-80's they lost me.

 

[PredFan]

If there is, I haven't seen it.

AC/DC Shot Down in Flames - YouTube


AC/DC is the greatest fuckin' band that ever lived!

If you disagree, then prove it!

AC/DC is one of the all-time greats. There are a few that I would put at the top and not really be able to determine who's better:

(not in any particular order)The Who, AC/DC, Van Halen, Led Zepplin, Green Day.

That said, Shoot to Thrill is the greatest Rock and Roll song ever written or played.

The Beatles??? The Beatles don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same thread as AC/DC.

Holy.......anyone who would put Green day in the same line-up as Led Zepplin...holy shit man...

Green Day is punk rock, which is not the same as the classic rock so I realize they would seem to not belong, but they do. They rock and they rock hard.

 

[NoNukes]

Is there a better band than AC/DC?

Hundreds, perhaps thousands. A few that come to mind? The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Byrds, The Band...

You should be nuked!

For being correct? AC DC were second rate, would put them in with U2 and REM, maybe.

 

[NoNukes]

If there is, I haven't seen it.

AC/DC Shot Down in Flames - YouTube


AC/DC is the greatest fuckin' band that ever lived!

If you disagree, then prove it!

AC/DC is one of the all-time greats. There are a few that I would put at the top and not really be able to determine who's better:

(not in any particular order)The Who, AC/DC, Van Halen, Led Zepplin, Green Day.

That said, Shoot to Thrill is the greatest Rock and Roll song ever written or played.

The Beatles??? The Beatles don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same thread as AC/DC.

The Beatles??? The Beatles don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same thread as AC/DC.

Amen! The beatles were wussies.

Green Day? Have to check em out.

The Beatles changed the world, what other bands can you say that about?

 

[manifold]

AC/DC is one of the all-time greats. There are a few that I would put at the top and not really be able to determine who's better:

(not in any particular order)The Who, AC/DC, Van Halen, Led Zepplin, Green Day.

That said, Shoot to Thrill is the greatest Rock and Roll song ever written or played.

The Beatles??? The Beatles don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same thread as AC/DC.

The Beatles??? The Beatles don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same thread as AC/DC.

Amen! The beatles were wussies.

Green Day? Have to check em out.

The Beatles changed the world, what other bands can you say that about?

I could say it about several, and just like your claim it would be rife with hyperbole.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Beatles changed the world, what other bands can you say that about?

Oh for Pete's sake...there should be some kind of cattle prod to snap people out of their delusions concerning the Beatles.
It goes without saying the Beatles were a HUUUUUGE success and influence in the mid-60's.
However they were of course short-lived. By the late 60's they were only having minor hits and waning record sales. And of course they broke up soon after.
Other bands have had way-way-waaaaay better success than the Beatles when considering longevity and continued success in future albums.
What the Beatles really were - were the most successful commercialized flash in a pan band in world history. All of their success happened within just a few years when they were the only game in town.

 

[manifold]

The Beatles changed the world, what other bands can you say that about?

Oh for Pete's sake...there should be some kind of cattle prod to snap people out of their delusions concerning the Beatles.
It goes without saying the Beatles were a HUUUUUGE success and influence in the mid-60's.
However they were of course short-lived. By the late 60's they were only having minor hits and waning record sales. And of course they broke up soon after.
Other bands have had way-way-waaaaay better success than the Beatles when considering longevity and continued success in future albums.
What the Beatles really were - were the most successful commercialized flash in a pan band in world history. All of their success happened within just a few years when they were the only game in town.

Even going all in, he still outbids you on hyperbole.

But cool rant tho!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Beatles changed the world, what other bands can you say that about?

Oh for Pete's sake...there should be some kind of cattle prod to snap people out of their delusions concerning the Beatles.
It goes without saying the Beatles were a HUUUUUGE success and influence in the mid-60's.
However they were of course short-lived. By the late 60's they were only having minor hits and waning record sales. And of course they broke up soon after.
Other bands have had way-way-waaaaay better success than the Beatles when considering longevity and continued success in future albums.
What the Beatles really were - were the most successful commercialized flash in a pan band in world history. All of their success happened within just a few years when they were the only game in town.

Even going all in, he still outbids you on hyperbole.

But cool rant tho!

Well hell...you know "fight fire with fire"...

 

[bobcollum]

nope, it's an honest observation. Here, i'll go ahead and bold the album and year after which the world stopped giving a shit about the band Rush.

Rush (1974)
Fly by Night (1975)
Caress of Steel (1975)
2112 (1976)
A Farewell to Kings (1977)
Hemispheres (1978)
Permanent Waves (1980)
Moving Pictures (1981)
Signals (1982)
Grace Under Pressure (1984)
Power Windows (1985)
Hold Your Fire (1987)
Presto (1989)
Roll the Bones (1991)
Counterparts (1993)
Test for Echo (1996)
Vapor Trails (2002)
Feedback (EP) (2004)
Snakes & Arrows (2007)
Clockwork Angels (2012)

So you don't care about Rush, big whoop.

So a good portion of the world also doesn't care about Rush, fair enough, but have you considered that a good portion of the world is also retarded?

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh for Pete's sake...there should be some kind of cattle prod to snap people out of their delusions concerning the Beatles.
It goes without saying the Beatles were a HUUUUUGE success and influence in the mid-60's.
However they were of course short-lived. By the late 60's they were only having minor hits and waning record sales. And of course they broke up soon after.
Other bands have had way-way-waaaaay better success than the Beatles when considering longevity and continued success in future albums.
What the Beatles really were - were the most successful commercialized flash in a pan band in world history. All of their success happened within just a few years when they were the only game in town.

Flash in the pan? You are way off regarding the Beatles. I don't know how old you are, but anyone old enough to have been watching the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964, knows the impact the Beatles had not just in music, but to the world in general.

Seeing them for the first time has the equivelent impact of a boxer standing in the ring and expecting a third rate club fighter, but getting Mike Tyson instead. You don't know what he's like, but he looks different than the other fighters, then the bell rings and you get your bell rung. Afterwards, you go, "WTF was that!" That's how the Beatles it America.

By the time of the Ed Sullivan Show, people were getting a little sick of "my little duece coop" and Neil Sedaca. The initial impact of rock 'n roll (Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, etc.) had lost it's luster. The Beatles came in out of left field (unless you lived in Hamburg) and changed the face of music. They were so different than any other group at that time (in America at least), that they inspired a whole generation of musician's and songwriters that is still going on to this day.

Anyone who lived from '64 - '70 and experienced the Beatles as they were happening, wouldn't be saying the shit you said.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Oh for Pete's sake...there should be some kind of cattle prod to snap people out of their delusions concerning the Beatles.
It goes without saying the Beatles were a HUUUUUGE success and influence in the mid-60's.
However they were of course short-lived. By the late 60's they were only having minor hits and waning record sales. And of course they broke up soon after.
Other bands have had way-way-waaaaay better success than the Beatles when considering longevity and continued success in future albums.
What the Beatles really were - were the most successful commercialized flash in a pan band in world history. All of their success happened within just a few years when they were the only game in town.

Flash in the pan? You are way off regarding the Beatles. I don't know how old you are, but anyone old enough to have been watching the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964, knows the impact the Beatles had not just in music, but to the world in general.

Seeing them for the first time has the equivelent impact of a boxer standing in the ring and expecting a third rate club fighter, but getting Mike Tyson instead. You don't know what he's like, but he looks different than the other fighters, then the bell rings and you get your bell rung. Afterwards, you go, "WTF was that!" That's how the Beatles it America.

By the time of the Ed Sullivan Show, people were getting a little sick of "my little duece coop" and Neil Sedaca. The initial impact of rock 'n roll (Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, etc.) had lost it's luster. The Beatles came in out of left field (unless you lived in Hamburg) and changed the face of music. They were so different than any other group at that time (in America at least), that they inspired a whole generation of musician's and songwriters that is still going on to this day.

Anyone who lived from '64 - '70 and experienced the Beatles as they were happening, wouldn't be saying the shit you said.

In that time period - yes. Your right - I shouldn't say "flash in a pan" - more like...inferno in a pan. What Beatle maniacs forget:
The Beatles only lasted about 5 years.
In that 5 year period they we're G I A N T S...but by 1970 their record sales were nosediving and they broke up. That is what I mean by flash in a pan - they couldn't sustain it. The Beatles didn't change the world for Pete's sake - western culture was ALREADY changing rapidly - the Beatles was a part of an ongoing culture revolution, but they were neither the catalyst or the engine of it...just like Joplin, Hendrix, Stones etc. were a part of it.

 

[bobcollum]

Oh for Pete's sake...there should be some kind of cattle prod to snap people out of their delusions concerning the Beatles.
It goes without saying the Beatles were a HUUUUUGE success and influence in the mid-60's.
However they were of course short-lived. By the late 60's they were only having minor hits and waning record sales. And of course they broke up soon after.
Other bands have had way-way-waaaaay better success than the Beatles when considering longevity and continued success in future albums.
What the Beatles really were - were the most successful commercialized flash in a pan band in world history. All of their success happened within just a few years when they were the only game in town.

Flash in the pan? You are way off regarding the Beatles. I don't know how old you are, but anyone old enough to have been watching the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964, knows the impact the Beatles had not just in music, but to the world in general.

Seeing them for the first time has the equivelent impact of a boxer standing in the ring and expecting a third rate club fighter, but getting Mike Tyson instead. You don't know what he's like, but he looks different than the other fighters, then the bell rings and you get your bell rung. Afterwards, you go, "WTF was that!" That's how the Beatles it America.

By the time of the Ed Sullivan Show, people were getting a little sick of "my little duece coop" and Neil Sedaca. The initial impact of rock 'n roll (Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, etc.) had lost it's luster. The Beatles came in out of left field (unless you lived in Hamburg) and changed the face of music. They were so different than any other group at that time (in America at least), that they inspired a whole generation of musician's and songwriters that is still going on to this day.

Anyone who lived from '64 - '70 and experienced the Beatles as they were happening, wouldn't be saying the shit you said.

In that time period - yes. Your right - I shouldn't say "flash in a pan" - more like...inferno in a pan. What Beatle maniacs forget:
The Beatles only lasted about 5 years.
In that 5 year period they we're G I A N T S...but by 1970 their record sales were nosediving and they broke up. That is what I mean by flash in a pan - they couldn't sustain it. The Beatles didn't change the world for Pete's sake - western culture was ALREADY changing rapidly - the Beatles was apart of an ongoing revolution.

I have to argue with a band's longevity being the only determining factor on their impact.

Just look at the Stones, they pretty much suck a big one.

Or even AC/DC....oh snap.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Flash in the pan? You are way off regarding the Beatles. I don't know how old you are, but anyone old enough to have been watching the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964, knows the impact the Beatles had not just in music, but to the world in general.

Seeing them for the first time has the equivelent impact of a boxer standing in the ring and expecting a third rate club fighter, but getting Mike Tyson instead. You don't know what he's like, but he looks different than the other fighters, then the bell rings and you get your bell rung. Afterwards, you go, "WTF was that!" That's how the Beatles it America.

By the time of the Ed Sullivan Show, people were getting a little sick of "my little duece coop" and Neil Sedaca. The initial impact of rock 'n roll (Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, etc.) had lost it's luster. The Beatles came in out of left field (unless you lived in Hamburg) and changed the face of music. They were so different than any other group at that time (in America at least), that they inspired a whole generation of musician's and songwriters that is still going on to this day.

Anyone who lived from '64 - '70 and experienced the Beatles as they were happening, wouldn't be saying the shit you said.

In that time period - yes. Your right - I shouldn't say "flash in a pan" - more like...inferno in a pan. What Beatle maniacs forget:
The Beatles only lasted about 5 years.
In that 5 year period they we're G I A N T S...but by 1970 their record sales were nosediving and they broke up. That is what I mean by flash in a pan - they couldn't sustain it. The Beatles didn't change the world for Pete's sake - western culture was ALREADY changing rapidly - the Beatles was apart of an ongoing revolution.

I have to argue with a band's longevity being the only determining factor on their impact.

Just look at the Stones, they pretty much suck a big one.

Or even AC/DC....oh snap.

I didn't say it was "the only" determiner...but it certainly is one of them - especially when what ended their run was a series of spectacular bad decisions by McCartney and Lennon.
The Beatles were 4 guys with different music styles, and VERY different personalities. McCartney was mainstream kind of guy who wanted to make pop songs about love and flowers and little Billy and Susie...Lennon was a dreamer/activist and wanted songs to be about something important...in between acting like an idiot to gain publicity.....like having interviews while naked in bed with Yoko.
Then there was George Harrison who is arguably the most talented of them all...certainly the musician of the group...who was stupidly placed in chains by the ego of McCartney and Lennon who thought they were the Beatles and George and Ringo were along for the ride.

 

[Toro]

I liked ACDC but its OK to have more than three chords in a song.