How many times have you searched the internet and found a "Top 10 Rock Bands" list? Or even a "Top 10 Lead Guitarist" list. For some unknown reason, people tend to take them more serious than life itself. But do they really define who is the best band of all time?
Take into account, the majority of these lists are printed by somebody who has conjured up the list out of their own preferences. I'm sure any Led Zeppelin fan would trash their own website with "Jimmy Page is God" or "Led Zeppelin are the lords of rock", not to mension putting them at number 1 on any band list. All these lists really do is cause arguments between fans who believe that their band should have got a higher place or, in a common scenario, "Stairway To Heaven" should not be named the best song of all time. We all agree it was a good song and has aged well. But with the rise in dance music in todays society, not many people take the time to really listen to rock music (except all of us good people on the UG website of corse). So infact, surely people are making these lists, not out of actual research, but because it is popular to like certain bands or songs. I'm sure a lot of people don't like The Beatles' music, but they were such a huge band they people dare not say anything bad because they believe it is popular to like them. So are any top 10 lists really reliable?
Of corse not. If they're made by some 14 year old kid at home, then a solar powered torch would be more reliable. And if they were made by actual researchers on the streets, then yes it is a more accurate calculation, but it is still a matter of opinion. I would take a guess and say that either
Zeppelin or
The Beatles would chart at number 1. Why do I think this? Because they are so well known around the world that people writing these lists will think that this is what we want to see. However, in a lot of cases this is not.
Van Halen fans would complain that they aren't high enough and
Metallica fans would... just complain... as always.
So what makes a good, respectable top 10 list? If you were to make one, how would you judge bands/musicians? You could start with who was most influencial. Possibly followed by who had the best range of songs. Again, these are always going to be a matter of opinion. Typical people popping into the influencial catagory are Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix or even Joe Satriani. But then you will always get people picking out the ones are AREN'T on the list. "What about Steve Vai?" they all say. "You can't forget John Petrucci, Ritchie Blackmore, Richie Sambora, Jack Kingsley, Slash or David Gilmour?" No, you can't forget them. They were all equally influencial and no one can take that away from them.
So do top 10 lists really define a good band or musician? No, they're are merely someones opinion. Nobody can really say who is the best or who is the most influencial. We are all influenced by people and things in our lives. Typically we are influenced by those who did it first so the older musicians will always gain more credit than anyone today. But out of such a large number of 60's and 70's rockers, is there really a "best band in the world"? Or is it all an excuss for a debate...
fu.ck you
.Lists suck too many good bands for there to be a #1
