I think it is quite interesting as well, and really speaks to the differing tastes that people have. However, I hope that no one in their right mind would say that the Foo Fighters are "better" than AC/DC or the Stones, or that the Beastie Boys are "better" than Rush. But your favorite bands are about enjoyment.I am quite disillusioned with what is happening here with the Foo Fighters. I don’t dislike them but dang, knocking out AC/DC and the Stones. How can that be? Well, other than only about a dozen people participating but still :lol:
And the Beastie Boys currently beating out Rush?
According to the song count in my iTunes library :lol: this cannot be correct.
AC/DC 113 songs
Rolling Stones 38
Rush 10
Foo Foo 3
Beastie Boys 1
Maybe I need to delve deeper into the FF catalog....or maybe you’re all nuts.
Yeah, bands/music/songs are very subjective tastewise. Like you say the Stones or Beatles etc., by any measure, are better bands, have had more influence etc. but they also fall victim to too much familiarity. I love AC/DC but more times than not I prefer to listen to other things. I guess the Foo Fighters results just surprised me because I can only name 3 of their songs and I think I literally haven't ever heard any others. Like I said, I may need to take a deeper dive into their stuff. Plus it's pretty tough to try to make any fair comparison between things like Sinatra, Rush, SRV, Beatles, Beastie Boys.... They are such different things. I just really like too many genres of music and am still unfamiliar with so many. Jazz and Hip Hop are probably the only two I can honestly say have virtually no appeal to me. I really like some Rap but hate most of it. Neil Diamond is awesome but how do you compare something like that to Clutch or Black Sabbath? The scope is endless.I think it is quite interesting as well, and really speaks to the differing tastes that people have. However, I hope that no one in their right mind would say that the Foo Fighters are "better" than AC/DC or the Stones, or that the Beastie Boys are "better" than Rush. But your favorite bands are about enjoyment.
For example, in the first round, I voted for the Ramones over the Beatles. By any possible objective metric (sales, musical talent, influence on pop culture, etc), the Beatles are indisputably "better," but sometimes (not always) I prefer a quick jam with the Ramones.
I gotta be honest, if the Foo Fighters were on the radio right now on one station, and either AC/DC or the Stones were on another, I would probably switch it to the Foos and sing along.
Yeah, bands/music/songs are very subjective tastewise. Like you say the Stones or Beatles etc., by any measure, are better bands, have had more influence etc. but they also fall victim to too much familiarity. I love AC/DC but more times than not I prefer to listen to other things. I guess the Foo Fighters results just surprised me because I can only name 3 of their songs and I think I literally haven't ever heard any others. Like I said, I may need to take a deeper dive into their stuff. Plus it's pretty tough to try to make any fair comparison between things like Sinatra, Rush, SRV, Beatles, Beastie Boys.... They are such different things. I just really like too many genres of music and am still unfamiliar with so many. Jazz and Hip Hop are probably the only two I can honestly say have virtually no appeal to me. I really like some Rap but hate most of it. Neil Diamond is awesome but how do you compare something like that to Clutch or Black Sabbath? The scope is endless.
AC/DC 113 songs
Well they have been around since the 70's.....Do have 20 downloads of each? I can only name like 4 songs
Well they have been around since the 70's.....
You need to explore a little if you seriously can only name 4.
Heck just between the albums Highway to hell and Back in black there are about 20 songs worth having
Yeah but THOSE 3 chords.... :lol:Yeah but every song is like the same 3 chords. I mean I like AC/DC but 113 songs?!