changingman
Well-known member
It is a subjective question but objectively speaking it's the Beatles
Quality not quantity really. The Stone Roses was pure perfection. After that Fools Gold was the Zenith but even stuff like love spreads from the decline was decent. Also their pre debut album stuff was terrible. I liked it myself but in a raw, mates as band, kind of way. It certainly wasn't good music.Such a subjective question which might garner 1000s of plausible answers. Which would all be wrong unless they say Led Zeppelin.
I love The Stone Roses but they shouldn’t be anywhere near this conversation. They made 1 and a half albums.
I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. You could argue that’s one of the greatest albums but as for greatest band ever, you surely required quantity and quality.Quality not quantity really. The Stone Roses was pure perfection. After that Fools Gold was the Zenith but even stuff like love spreads from the decline was decent. Also their pre debut album stuff was terrible. I liked it myself but in a raw, mates as band, kind of way. It certainly wasn't good music.
However for that brief moment. They were peerless.
You might have a point. Sometimes longevity actually dilutes a band. For example oasis we're really very good for two and a bit album's but then just become another singalonga indie band.I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. You could argue that’s one of the greatest albums but as for greatest band ever, you surely required quantity and quality.
That’s why greatness is so difficult to achieve.You might have a point. Sometimes longevity actually dilutes a band.