The Great 7 bands

I voted for Van Halen...Eddie is a brilliant guitarist, but I am not into the music so much. David Lee Roth's solo stuff was more appealing to me..(being a youth in the 80's and all...lol)

Van Halen for me too. I echo what Shane said, I've never heard anything they've done I thought was that great. Yeah, Eddie is an innovative player, but I can't stand D L Roth. And Sammy Hagar wasn't much help, either.

Van Halen is easily the most over rated of the groups, Eddie is a consumate technician on the fretboard but he has no soul.

Thank you BoaB for such a lovely rebuttal to the original post.

Nalepa, I can only be lead to assume that you were born post '80. If the Beatles had not accomplished what they had in the early '60, the other 6 bands would be some very talented old washed up bricklayers now, thay would never have existed. And if you think for a minute that George couldn't play then apparently you have never LISTENED to All Things Must Pass, you may have heard it but you need to listen.

Such ENERGY! Such ENTHUSIASM! Such PASSION!

Van Halen. Boring shit.

Van Halen?? And what the heck is Van Halen doin in that list? U2, Queen, Nirvana and even Deep Purple are much more famous (and probably overrated) than Van Halen.

I'd vote Nirvana if i could, what a suicide in the right moment can do! (disclaimer: i used to like them and i've the maximum respect for K.Cobain pain, discographers were smartasses).

Yeah, I just can't figure out why should Van Halen be on that list. I'm not thrashing 'em at all, although I believe their weight was based mainly on Eddie's talent, but they never reached even half the status of any other group you mentioned. True, people like U2 could be on that list way more easily, and deserve it, too. Anyway one more thing has to be said: the Doors weren't really mainstream superstar during their times, they had the kind of heavy cult following that other people like The Cure or Radiohead had in certain phases of their career, all the legend about them basically came afterwards, fueled also by Jim's death... as some of you stated about Kurt, a young rockstar will be far more legendary if he doesn't get past his 33rd birthday...

This is a question for all those who voted The Beatles. Just out of curiosity but, in all seriousness, do you really think Van Halen are better than The Beatles??? :o

In answer to mad yannis - no , not really, I voted for The Beatles out of principal - if you lived in Liverpool you'd understand (possibly - it could just be me of course ).

Just like Dr.Cheese I picked the Beatles out of principle. I really find it hard to respect John Lennon for the monster he eventually became. Let's face it, aside from a few good songs, his solo career was awful. He even tried to get Yoko into it. Those naked shots of the couple and Lennon saying the Beatles were more popular than God and all the other things that supposedly made Lennon great were done (and don't be fooled) with the purpose of generating more publicity. It also seems that Lennon was an asshole to his family.
I also lived in England for a while, and Im just sick of people making the Beatles out to be anything more than a good band. The post-Revolver stuff is good-I don't deny that...but take a listen to their early albums and you'll get a different side to the band. They were just trying to sell records in any way they could (getting pretty desperate at times). I don't think the Beatles ever really tried to change music-they just made the 'rock band' popular. There are no great meanings in songs about Walruses.

As for Harrison, name a guitar player that is well known like him and is WORSE than him...it can't be done easily. It is ironic that most of the bands the Beatles infuenced could play their instruments way better than the fab four.

1. John simply said: that in the eyes of teenagers, The Beatles were getting bigger than God. He NEVER said that he was bigger than God, or that the Beatles were bigger than God.

2. At least John did what he wanted. So be it if he wanted to appear naked on an album cover.

3. The Beatles were NEVER bad on their instruments. Even in 1961 and '62, they were good musicians. They wrote songs using complex chords. And you can't say that John Lennon wasen't a good guitar player, listen to the rhythm guitar on "All My Loving" (from 1963, by the way). That's an impressive part.

4. If the Beatles seemed like they were trying to hard to sell records in the early '60s, then everyone else was too. That's the way it was back then.

5. I think their early stuff is good. You can't listen to "All My Loving" or "This Boy" or "I Call Your Name" or "I Want to Hold Your Hand" or "Yes It Is" and say that's not respectable for the period.

6. They definately weren't good enough to get all the attention they did, but because of that fame, I think they got more confident to experiment - hence albums post-Rubber Soul. And without that, we would have not had truly good Beatles music.

Sorry for the long post, but I have a lot to say about the Beatles.

I think "I Saw Her Standing There" is a superb early-Beatles song.

Oh, not to be nit-picky, but John said they "were more popular (read that as 'well known') than Jesus". I'm sure he didn't mean it to be sacreligious, but, at the time, Beatlemania was a world-wide phenomena, and the statement was probably true, numbers-wise.

Exactly.

Oh yeah, it was Jesus. Thanks for pointing that out.

'More famous than Jesus', i heard it referred even to Bono, M.Jackson and even Bill Gates (and Bin Laden lately), it's just so to say.

Bono, Michael Jackson, Bill Gates and Bin Laden! Hell! What a bad company!!!