PDA

View Full Version : BEST 60's BANDS



RATMan
03-02-2007, 05:35 PM
Someone do one for the 00's

bmack86
03-02-2007, 05:37 PM
I can't argue about this one, except the fact that you left off the Velvet Underground. C'mon man. And the Stooges. I guess I can argue. The Zombies...

Encaitare
03-02-2007, 05:41 PM
The Doors are one of my all time favorites...but the 60s were all about the Beatles. Or so says my mom, who still hasn't quite left the 60s yet.

bmack86
03-02-2007, 05:41 PM
I dislike the Doors.

Encaitare
03-02-2007, 05:45 PM
How can you dislike the Doors?

randy ricochet
03-02-2007, 05:49 PM
Jimi Hendrix and The Kinks

bmack86
03-02-2007, 05:51 PM
The first album was good. Other than that, they were fairly mediocre and Jim Morrison was a bad poet. One man's opinion.`

menikmati
03-02-2007, 06:09 PM
THE BYRDS

bmack86
03-02-2007, 06:11 PM
Are fantastic. Almost makes up for David Crosby's bizarre behaviour now.

menikmati
03-02-2007, 06:13 PM
I'm listening to the Byrds now.....well the Byrds playing one of Dylan's songs.

mountmccabe
03-02-2007, 06:17 PM
Dammit, Erik, I had such high hopes for your appearance in this thread.

menikmati
03-02-2007, 06:20 PM
When hopes are high, I can only let down.

mountmccabe
03-02-2007, 06:23 PM
NIRFUCKINGVANA

...was what I was looking for.

thefunkylama
03-02-2007, 06:30 PM
Yeah, that would have been awesome.

Encaitare
03-02-2007, 06:31 PM
The first album was good. Other than that, they were fairly mediocre and Jim Morrison was a bad poet. One man's opinion.`

I can understand that. I was raised with Jim Morrison replacing Jesus on the cross; my mom worshipped the man in her youth, and wanted to make sure to instill the good vibes in her children I guess. Now that I'm older, I can see how sad and pathetic he really was towards the end, but I still love to put on a cassette of their first album when driving up the Paficic Coast HWY on a summer day.

bmack86
03-02-2007, 06:38 PM
I do love that first album. That, and LA Woman, the song, not the album.

bmack86
03-02-2007, 06:46 PM
I'm playin the Byrds on my show right now
You Don't Miss Your Water.

woogie846
03-02-2007, 07:01 PM
Crosby, Stills, and Nash.

Pixiessp
03-02-2007, 07:51 PM
The Yardbirds.

nothingman00
03-02-2007, 09:08 PM
Finally, one with an easy answer for me. The Doors by a mile.

PotVsKtl
03-02-2007, 09:36 PM
ONxv3RnPCIs&eurl=

Proadict
03-02-2007, 09:46 PM
whres pink floyd 6o's/ syd era? that pink floyd years where awesomes! see emily play !

John Peel is My Co-pilot
03-02-2007, 09:59 PM
No Monkees love?

bumper31
03-03-2007, 12:02 AM
wow actually voted for stones

xbnmx
03-03-2007, 12:14 AM
Where's the Grateful Dead?

TomAz
03-03-2007, 04:27 AM
The first album was good. Other than that, they were fairly mediocre and Jim Morrison was a bad poet. One man's opinion.`

Agreed on all counts.

idrive1life
03-03-2007, 09:07 AM
The fucking Beatles

TomAz
03-03-2007, 09:16 AM
The Ventures.

TomAz
03-03-2007, 09:17 AM
Where's the Grateful Dead?


get thee to Bonnaroo

Yablonowitz
03-03-2007, 09:26 AM
Is Dylan not on here because he's a solo artist? If so, that's a stupid limitation of these polls.

It ignores huge contributors such as:
Elvis, Buddy Holly, Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Prince, etc etc.

TomAz
03-03-2007, 09:29 AM
well you could start your own polls. Best solo artist of the various decades. I bet people would enjoy that.

canexplain
03-03-2007, 09:31 AM
i saw all of those bands, some multiple times, and for a single show, cream at a small club here were the best ... i hate drum solos but ginger tore it up and it was actually good ... cr**** oh and like everyone is adding groups , traffic was stellar every time i saw them ..

Yablonowitz
03-03-2007, 10:36 AM
well you could start your own polls. Best solo artist of the various decades. I bet people would enjoy that.

Only if I get a talking cat in it.

hitthenorth
03-03-2007, 03:39 PM
Surely it would be The Small Faces?

jimmycrackcorn
03-04-2007, 08:15 AM
beatles

i_like_cake530
03-04-2007, 05:08 PM
Where's the Grateful Dead?

thankyou

kroqken
05-12-2007, 12:58 PM
I thought Cream and Led Zepplin were 1970s bands, not 1960s bands.

Caitlin
05-12-2007, 01:00 PM
DEFINITELY The Doors.

canexplain
05-12-2007, 02:10 PM
DEFINITELY The Doors.

thats a given for caitlin ... cr****

fober
05-12-2007, 02:14 PM
I thought Cream and Led Zepplin were 1970s bands, not 1960s bands.

Thank you.

kroqken
05-12-2007, 03:45 PM
I just lay the facts out on the table.

TomAz
05-12-2007, 04:10 PM
You might want to engage in a little fact checking first, Ken.

Cream released its first album in 1966 and broke up in 1968. Fresh Cream was released in 1966; Disraeli Gears in 1967; Wheels of Fire in 1968; and Goodbye in 1969. All that came out in the 70s were live albums and compilations.

You're closer to the mark with Zeppelin, although their first two albums were released in 1969.

kroqken
05-12-2007, 05:15 PM
Oops on Cream, I don't know why I associated them with the 1970s instead of the 1960s. I miss the 1960s room they used to have at Club Bang in Hollywood.

All That I Am
05-12-2007, 05:22 PM
How do i vote for The Velvet Underground?!

bballarl
05-13-2007, 01:12 AM
The obvious right answer to this question is The Beatles.

TomAz
05-13-2007, 06:07 AM
I agree with Andrew. that 50% of the voters have not, however, is telling.

sydaud
05-13-2007, 06:45 AM
I'm playin the Byrds on my show right now
You Don't Miss Your Water.

The Byrds covering William Bell.....fan-fucking-tastic.
The "Rodeo" album is just so superb all the way through; I've been known to belt out "The Christian Life" on many a drunken evening

Here's a debate for the initiated: "Sweethearts of the Rodeo" vs. "The Gilded Palace of Sin"???

As for this poll question, of course the answer is the Beatles, so that is why I had to give my vote to the Beach Boys. If Brian Wilson had ever had a consistent writing partner that was half as good as Lennon or McCartney, I think the 60's musical scene would have shaped up differently. Yes, I know that Wilson had Van Dyke Parks and Roger Christian before that (don't even get me started on Mike Love's contributions...) but had someone just been there with Wilson throughout his whole mid-60's journey...but, alas.

TomAz
05-13-2007, 07:18 AM
Here's a debate for the initiated: "Sweethearts of the Rodeo" vs. "The Gilded Palace of Sin"???



outstanding question. Outstanding.

I'm inclined to go with GPOS, if only because it has a lot more Parsons orginials (plus 'Hot Burrito #1' is like the greatest song ever). But I think I'm going to use this question as an excuse to listen to both albums back to back this afternoon to refresh my memory.

kroqken
05-13-2007, 12:23 PM
It's amazing that the WHo, ROlling Stones and the Beach BOys so far only have two votes each.

schoolofruckus
05-13-2007, 07:21 PM
The Rolling Stones suck. If they'd quit in 1969, then they could maybe warrant consideration (as "Aftermath" is their only good album). Or was that part of the criteria?

schoolofruckus
05-13-2007, 07:25 PM
Also, I wouldn't have minded seeing King Crimson on this list.

Mr.Nipples
05-13-2007, 07:30 PM
robert fripp is a fucking weirdo...

i_like_cake530
05-13-2007, 08:23 PM
hmmm, i don't see grateful dead, instead, i see the fucken byrds. what the fuck has this board come to?

bmack86
05-13-2007, 10:37 PM
GOod taste...
The Byrds were so much better than the Grateful Dead.

oinoch
05-13-2007, 11:13 PM
Yeah, it's a bit hard to argue against the long-lasting influence the Beatles had on music as compared to any of their peers, except perhaps the Velvet Undeground within our Coachella bubble.

It's a shame the Kinks didn't release that song about the tranny until 1970.

sydaud
05-14-2007, 12:34 AM
I'm inclined to go with GPOS, if only because it has a lot more Parsons orginials (plus 'Hot Burrito #1' is like the greatest song ever).

I agree with you for the very same reasoning, but Hot Burrito #2, with its "Jesus Christ" refrain, juts nails it, in my opinion.

sydaud
05-14-2007, 12:37 AM
It's amazing that the WHo, ROlling Stones and the Beach BOys so far only have two votes each.

I am not amazed at all...I mean this question does have a fairly straightforward answer (unless you try to be funny like me). Do I really believe the Beach Boys were the better band for the entire decade? No. Now that I am in my mid-30's though, I find that I'd rather listen to them on most days than listen to the Beatles....but that's just probably due to over-exposure to the former.....

bballarl
05-14-2007, 12:54 AM
Pet Sounds is a phenomenal piece of music. Had Smile been released in the 60s, it would be just as highly regarded. The Who put out two records in the 60s that I consider 100% stone cold classics (Sell Out, Tommy). The Stones had some good ones, especially in the late 60s. But The Beatles made at least 6 (I would argue more) totally classic records in the 1960s.



I don't know what I am arguing, but I felt like doing it. I am going to bed now.

TomAz
05-14-2007, 06:48 AM
In the 60s the Who were more of a singles band. "I Can't Explain", "Magic Bus", "Substitute", etc don't show up on any of their albums. Which is why I consider Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy to be the Who's third 'stone cold classic' of the 60s even though it's a compilation.

sydaud
05-14-2007, 05:12 PM
When did the "single" become such a bad word anyway? The Beatles, Stones and The Who all regularly release fantastic singles and the goal was to get radio play. Listen to The Who's "Live At Leeds" and here Pete talk about what chart position a certain song attained. Somewhere along the line, trying to write a great song and get radio rotation became "selling out". I think it's too bad and I really think it's what killed radio (along with "format" radio).

Not that anyone cares, but I collect unscoped radio airchecks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. Yesterday, for instance, as I was cleaning out my garage, I listened to a KHJ/Real Don Steele (L.A.) aircheck from July 1967. Lee Greenwood, The Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Buffalo Springfield all within an hour. Format radio does not allow for such things anymore and I think it sucks.

Sorry for the vent; had to be done.

bmack86
05-14-2007, 05:24 PM
When did the "single" become such a bad word anyway? The Beatles, Stones and The Who all regularly release fantastic singles and the goal was to get radio play. Listen to The Who's "Live At Leeds" and here Pete talk about what chart position a certain song attained. Somewhere along the line, trying to write a great song and get radio rotation became "selling out". I think it's too bad and I really think it's what killed radio (along with "format" radio).

Not that anyone cares, but I collect unscoped radio airchecks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. Yesterday, for instance, as I was cleaning out my garage, I listened to a KHJ/Real Don Steele (L.A.) aircheck from July 1967. Lee Greenwood, The Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Buffalo Springfield all within an hour. Format radio does not allow for such things anymore and I think it sucks.

Sorry for the vent; had to be done.

I don't think Tom said anything disparaging about them being more of a singles act; you probably realized this, but wanted to write a rant regardless, and I feel ya. Singles are still a fantastic thing, and Tom seems to be saying the same thing by giving the Who props for Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy.

And, Sweetheart of the Rodeo is, to me, the superior album. I love that thing to death.

i_like_cake530
05-14-2007, 06:35 PM
GOod taste...
The Byrds were so much better than the Grateful Dead.

blasphemy

bmack86
05-14-2007, 06:36 PM
Nope. Just plain ole common sense.

i_like_cake530
05-14-2007, 06:42 PM
Jerry Garcia = God

sbgiant
05-14-2007, 07:25 PM
The Pipettes

sydaud
05-14-2007, 07:39 PM
I don't think Tom said anything disparaging about them being more of a singles act; you probably realized this, but wanted to write a rant regardless, and I feel ya. Singles are still a fantastic thing, and Tom seems to be saying the same thing by giving the Who props for Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy.

And, Sweetheart of the Rodeo is, to me, the superior album. I love that thing to death.

It was a rant for rant's sake---what prompted my thought is that an album like "Meaty" couldn't be released today (a collection of singles, not a greatest hits collection When "Meaty" was released, that was the first time that many of the tracks had been made available on LP as Tom aluded to). Bands, regardless of talent, feel that they must show their artistic abilities in releasing full length albums---scratch that, full length cd's. And that is even worse. So were stuck with thousands of bands that don't want to write the "great single" because it's simply not cool.

Rant, out.

TomAz
05-15-2007, 07:37 AM
GOod taste...
The Byrds were so much better than the Grateful Dead.

This is a true fact.


Not that anyone cares, but I collect unscoped radio airchecks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. Yesterday, for instance, as I was cleaning out my garage, I listened to a KHJ/Real Don Steele (L.A.) aircheck from July 1967. Lee Greenwood, The Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Buffalo Springfield all within an hour. Format radio does not allow for such things anymore and I think it sucks.

Sorry for the vent; had to be done.

please define: "unscoped" and "aircheck". I am unfamiliar with what those mean. But as for your general point: I agree. AM pop radio in the 70s was all over the place. You could hear Charlie Rich followed by Marvin Gaye followed by ZZ Top.


I don't think Tom said anything disparaging about them being more of a singles act; you probably realized this, but wanted to write a rant regardless, and I feel ya. Singles are still a fantastic thing, and Tom seems to be saying the same thing by giving the Who props for Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy.


Yes, that's what I meant. I focused on MBBB in response to Andrew's claim that the Who's quality 60s work was limited to "two stone cold classics".


It was a rant for rant's sake---what prompted my thought is that an album like "Meaty" couldn't be released today (a collection of singles, not a greatest hits collection When "Meaty" was released, that was the first time that many of the tracks had been made available on LP as Tom aluded to). Bands, regardless of talent, feel that they must show their artistic abilities in releasing full length albums---scratch that, full length cd's. And that is even worse. So were stuck with thousands of bands that don't want to write the "great single" because it's simply not cool.

Rant, out.

You touch on another good point: the length of CDs today vs the length of vinyl albums. They're a good 20 mins longer and it's not all quality.

But: I think what's gone unstated is that in the download era the single is making a comeback in a big way, I think.

kroqken
05-16-2007, 09:58 AM
What does one deadhead say to another deadhead when the drugs run out? Boy, this music really sucks.

sydaud
05-16-2007, 04:49 PM
This is a true fact.



please define: "unscoped" and "aircheck". I am unfamiliar with what those mean. But as for your general point: I agree. AM pop radio in the 70s was all over the place. You could hear Charlie Rich followed by Marvin Gaye followed by ZZ Top.


You touch on another good point: the length of CDs today vs the length of vinyl albums. They're a good 20 mins longer and it's not all quality.

But: I think what's gone unstated is that in the download era the single is making a comeback in a big way, I think.

An unscoped aircheck is nothing more than a complete radio broadcast (commercials, jocks, songs, et. al.) Scoped airchecks do not include songs. While many dj's felt/feel as though they were the stars, for me, the music has always been front and center. But taken as a whole, AM radio from 35-45 years ago absolutely owns radio of today. If anyone is interested, take a look at reelradio.com and check out some shows.

The single is making a comeback, but I think it's consumer driven, not artist driven. The single (the way I see it) was a song released apart from an album (Hey Jude, Good Vibrations, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Happy Jack) that wasn't subsequently buried in the next album. I believe they were released as such to whet the appetite for the band in between albums. Today's singles are almost always on the album released at/near the same time. I know my point is not well made---does this itself make the quality of the music any better? Probably not, but I think it speaks to the process of why music is made now and why it was made 40 years ago. So, when I say it's consumer driven, technology has caught up with consumer demand. No one wants to pay $18.95 for one song anymore and the consumer finally has the technology to circumvent previous process. Today's single, in my opinion, is not much more than a loss leader, intended as nothing more than to lead the consumer to the higher priced full release.

And I agree 100% on the vinyl vs cd filler thoughts. 30 years ago, record companies would release the double album if they thought the product was worth the price. Now, filling a cd with 77 minutes of music (and skits and intros and outro and interludes) is seen as nothing more than "providing the consumer with more 'value' for the dollar".

God, I feel old.......

TomAz
05-16-2007, 06:57 PM
The single is making a comeback, but I think it's consumer driven, not artist driven. ....

I agree, but I'm thinking the artists will soon catch on. or catch up. or something.

maybe just wishful thinking..

kroqken
05-22-2007, 05:00 PM
The 1960s still may be the most influential decade for modern music today, even though it was 40 plus years ago.

algunz
05-22-2007, 05:12 PM
I agree. With what was going on with Elvis, Johnny Cash, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Stones, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Dizzie Gillespie, Tito Puente, The Velvet Underground, etc. I don't think we've had a decade where so much progress and creativity was happening all at once. Where it seemed as if new genres of music were popping up every day.

thatfinkleygirl
06-01-2007, 11:52 AM
Didn't the Stooges' first album come out in 1969?

disgustipated
06-01-2007, 12:12 PM
The MC5


http://www.furious.com/perfect/mc5/graphics/mc5live.jpg

fatbastard
06-02-2007, 01:05 PM
This is a tough one. I appreciate the lyrics of the Beach Boys and The Beatles but I love the sound of Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin (Cream and The Byrds for that matter).

It's like asking if country, jazz, or rock was the best in 60's. Each made their own mark for future artist.

Son of a bitch. I'll choose Jimi. I would have been a fan of him and that type of lifestyle if I was old enough to see him in the 60's.

sydaud
06-02-2007, 10:45 PM
Didn't the Stooges' first album come out in 1969?

Yes it did.

kroqken
06-05-2007, 05:36 PM
I am surprised the Greatful Dead is not a choice.

paulb
01-27-2008, 01:48 PM
Beatles are great, but i voted for Jimi!

MantisMel
01-29-2008, 10:18 PM
I am surprised the Greatful Dead is not a choice.

Totally

GaragePoet
02-01-2008, 08:39 PM
personally, the Doors are my favorite on this list, but i'm sure the Beatles were much more appropriate for the '60s... also, i gotta say Zeppelin--although their first 2 albums came out in '69--were much more of a '70s band...

Sonicifyouwantit
02-04-2008, 01:48 PM
led zep is a 70s band, they released two albums in 1969 one in oct. of '69, all the others in the 70s

Anotherbrickinthewall
02-21-2008, 09:49 PM
The Who, Cream, Hendrix and Zepplin are all revolutionaries I bow down to but The Beatles changed history. Music will never be the same. And where is Dylan? He deserves a spot!

alex97
02-26-2008, 08:46 AM
I can't argue about this one, except the fact that you left off the Velvet Underground. C'mon man. And the Stooges. I guess I can argue. The Zombies...


#1.- Beatles :pulse

the rest...

Doors
Rolling Stones
Velvet Underground

and yeah zombies were really really good.

Beach Boys

Cream
Jimi Hendrix Experience
The byrds
The Who


aren't stooges more 70s?

alex97
02-26-2008, 08:57 AM
The 1960s still may be the most influential decade for modern music today, even though it was 40 plus years ago.


I agree. With what was going on with Elvis, Johnny Cash, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Stones, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Dizzie Gillespie, Tito Puente, The Velvet Underground, etc. I don't think we've had a decade where so much progress and creativity was happening all at once. Where it seemed as if new genres of music were popping up every day.

i totally agree with both of you..

hmm i think maybe that's the reason why i couldn't bring myself to put some of the bands in an actual order.. :o

Jon Blazed
03-02-2009, 08:39 PM
I voted for The Stones, baby. But I do believe that '1969' by The Stooges is the greatest song ever.

THELIZARDKING
03-02-2009, 09:21 PM
The Doors are thee best 60s band by far, they blended countless styles together, and where the hell is pink floyd on the list?

Jon Blazed
03-02-2009, 09:51 PM
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p39/p_rock79/sonics_cavestomp.jpg

Jon Blazed
03-02-2009, 10:04 PM
My order of the listed bands

Led Zeppelin > Jimi Hendrix Experience > Rolling Stones > Beatles > Kinks > Cream > Beach Boys > Doors > The Who > Byrds


***the last five I am not too familiar with