bobcollum
Rookie
Did a prog rocker run over your dog or something?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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 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!
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
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)
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)
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...
You should be nuked!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...
The Beatles??? The Beatles don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same thread as AC/DC.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.
Amen! The beatles were wussies.
Green Day? Have to check em out.
The Beatles??? The Beatles don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same thread as AC/DC.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.
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?
The Beatles changed the world, what other bands can you say that about?
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.
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!
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)
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.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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.