Who is your Favorite classic band?

[Stavros]

Stavros...Everybody has their own opinion and you know the saying about opinions. There IS no argument here. If you can't participate, I suggest you vacate.

I am participating, and making the valid point that judging a band should involve more than listening to recordings, isn't that a fair point? Anyway I like arguing, it should help clarify opinion not suppress it.

[Stavros]

NO Stavros. In your usual manner of potsing something hostile to almost anything I write look at the opener on this thread i says NOTHING about Live bands and so forth. Look again. The Beatles, while as a live band were hardly relevant in their glory days, had an infuence which is still resonating today as a recording band. And the opener asked simply which bands... he did NOT say live. As a cradle for fostering talent mayall was remarkable, but as a player himself and musical innovator in the wider sense, he was second rate.

I know it doesn't call for live bands, but as I have said before, I would have thought a judgement of bands must relate to their live work as well as their recording work for them to be judged overall, and isn't that how most people make judgements? 'Great album, crap live'; great on stage but albums disappoint', etc. I chose Mayall because his live bands at the time were amongst the best live performers, some of his albums remain great, some not, which is why he is not for most people in the top 100 and anyway most people on this board weren't born when his bands were playing. But if we can agree that the optimum value is ascribed to bands for both studio and live work, I cannot validate The Beatles. You need to explain why you dismiss live work and privilege studio work.

[Prospero]

Stavros... again you are drawing false conclusions from my post. I do not dismiss live work and privilege stuido work. In the case of The Beatles i was sadly toddling and in London when they were a supposedly storming live band. (Though I did see Lennon, Harrison and McCarntey live in various solo situations. of those Harrison was by far the finest.) I was talking about their overall influence and musical achievement.And yes there are many bands in the years since whose live music I have seen and hugely enjoyed. In the era designated that would include The Band (a wondrous live band) Floyd - post pre and post the departure of Syd Barrett, - The Stones (rather amaturish back then - hugely and some might say overly professional now) Hendrix, Cream, The Jefferson Airplane ( a concert in Hampstead), CSNY, The Kinks, and many many more I've surely forgotten. I do not in any way privilege recordings over live. Given the opportunity a fine concert - jazz, classical music, rock, rock you name it trumps a recording for presence and immediacy.

We'll have to agree to differ on the musical value of the bulk of Mayall's recordings. Some good stuff but not of the first order.

[irvin66]

But I like AC / DC too!

[bassman2546]

Recently inducted Rock and Roll Hall of Famers - RUSH! And still producing great music today.

[Jericho]

What, no KC & The Sunshine Band?

[buttslinger]

After all is said and done the Beatles are head and shoulders over any other choice you could make for relevance, gravity, social importance, you name it.
Elvis, Sinatra, Dylan, ....they all top the Beatles in some areas, they used to have to carry John Lennon out of Keith Richard's house.......but the Beatles moved an entire generation to their center, they literally changed the world.

As for FAVORITE band, I say
KC and the Sunshine Band, hands down.....

[Bopper007]

Hard for me to pick my top favorite. So I have several. As stated in the OP, these are pre 80s.

Humble Pie (with Frampton)
Ten Years After
Uriah Heep
Pink Floyd (after Syd Barrett left)
Deep Purple (classic lineup)
Barclay James Harvest

and more

[robertlouis]

The Beatles may not have been themselves great innovators, but when it came to challenging studio orthodoxy they threw the rule book away and gave their collaborators like George Martin and their team of engineers wonderful problems to solve. Some of the effects on Sergeant Pepper had never been tried before, Being For the Benefit of Mr Kite being a prime example, where the Lowrey organ was played via a speaker mounted on a turntable. Playing the tape backwards as on Tomorrow Never Knows from the Revolver album and of course on Strawberry Fields Forever were other innovations.

And no-one can possibly suggest that had the Beatles not become the global musical and social phenomenon that they did, we would have the diversity and rich legacy of popular music of the last fifty years.

I fear more now for the innovators than at any time, when success is measured for the masses by the ability for polished doll-like clones of both sexes to look and sound reasonably good in an entirely created and artificial TV environment, the likes of The Voice, X-Factor, American Idol etc. It kills innovation and plays for safety every time.

Rock and roll is four spotty social inadequates banging tunelessly on cheap instruments in someone's garage for a few months or years until suddenly it clicks and they've got a sound. Without that raw energy the music simply withers.

Please stop watching the shite that the TV channels shove down your throats and get out there and support your local bands before it's too late.

OK, rant over. I'm going to plug in my telecaster with the cans on and play power chords for a while.....

[maxpower]

The Beatles may not have been themselves great innovators, but when it came to challenging studio orthodoxy they threw the rule book away and gave their collaborators like George Martin and their team of engineers wonderful problems to solve. Some of the effects on Sergeant Pepper had never been tried before, Being For the Benefit of Mr Kite being a prime example, where the Lowrey organ was played via a speaker mounted on a turntable. Playing the tape backwards as on Tomorrow Never Knows from the Revolver album and of course on Strawberry Fields Forever were other innovations.

And no-one can possibly suggest that had the Beatles not become the global musical and social phenomenon that they did, we would have the diversity and rich legacy of popular music of the last fifty years.

I fear more now for the innovators than at any time, when success is measured for the masses by the ability for polished doll-like clones of both sexes to look and sound reasonably good in an entirely created and artificial TV environment, the likes of The Voice, X-Factor, American Idol etc. It kills innovation and plays for safety every time.

Rock and roll is four spotty social inadequates banging tunelessly on cheap instruments in someone's garage for a few months or years until suddenly it clicks and they've got a sound. Without that raw energy the music simply withers.

Please stop watching the shite that the TV channels shove down your throats and get out there and support your local bands before it's too late.

OK, rant over. I'm going to plug in my telecaster with the cans on and play power chords for a while.....

Fuck yeah.