DLT FORUM

I'm not a big fan of their choices...

I disagree with everything they picked.

They have the White Stripes at #6. I personally couldn't wait for the show to be over the last 2 times I've seen them.

JustSumDude wrote:I've never heard of most of the bands on that list... I guess that means I'm old.
















P.S. U2 is overrated.

I agree with everything on your list.

The Flaming Lips are awesome live!

I could only see up to 7.

And I've never heard of most of the ones below.

However, I'm dying to see QOTSA and the live DVD i have of them is awesome

Yeah, I must be old, too. That list means nothing to me, really.

As for U2, they might be awesome performers live, but I can't see paying money to hear the same three chords repeated over and over again live on stage. (sorry AB)

Styx had amazing stage presence.

Rush still does put on the best show visually, as far as I'm concerned, even if I haven't liked their last couple albums that much.

(btw: Styx and Rush were old before I was... I just appreciate classic/prog rock.)

exelis wrote:Yeah, I must be old, too. That list means nothing to me, really.

As for U2, they might be awesome performers live, but I can't see paying money to hear the same three chords repeated over and over again live on stage. (sorry AB)

People say this about them a lot. There's truth to it, but you can say the same of any band that has a sound: Rush, U2, Aerosmith, etc.

It's their sound, is all I can counter with. I'm much more into the lyrics and the overall sound of the set of instruments, rather than one in particular.

A final counter point: same three chords? Really? Even during the Bono MacPhesto years? I don' t think so.

smash wrote:

exelis wrote:Yeah, I must be old, too. That list means nothing to me, really.

As for U2, they might be awesome performers live, but I can't see paying money to hear the same three chords repeated over and over again live on stage. (sorry AB)

People say this about them a lot. There's truth to it, but you can say the same of any band that has a sound: Rush, U2, Aerosmith, etc.

It's their sound, is all I can counter with. I'm much more into the lyrics and the overall sound of the set of instruments, rather than one in particular.

A final counter point: same three chords? Really? Even during the Bono MacPhesto years? I don' t think so.

Old U2 was better, you're right. They've really gotten monotonous, though.

I'll choose E) strongly disagree about your first statement, though. Nobody can accuse Rush (as a very strong example) of anything remotely like that. They have constantly updated and increased their repertoire since inception, and have more musical chops in terms of everything from chord structure to different meters to modulating keys throughout their songs. People can say they don't like Rush, and that's fine, but they can't say that they are monotonous, or have fallen into the same 3 chords, or whatever.

No offense intended, but Rush has a distinct sound. Whether its the vocals or the riff... I can spot a rush song a mile away.

smash wrote:No offense intended, but Rush has a distinct sound. Whether its the vocals or the riff... I can spot a rush song a mile away.

Geddy Lee has a distinct voice, and that always gives it away, but I guarantee you that I could choose many obscure pieces and if I were to cut out the voice track you would not know it was Rush. A distinct sound is OK, anyway, it's when you hear nearly the same song over and over that it gets cheesy.

I don't even remember which songs they were, except maybe "The Fly", but when I had this discussion (argument) back in the high-school chorus room I could start singing lyrics from several different U2 songs and they would fit the music, chord structure and all, perfectly. It usually ended the conversation.

Listening to Rush is a punishment in some places

Zorak wrote:Listening to Rush is a punishment in some places

So is listening to Smash.