I appreciate the unfan and rozi.

Or maybe we would be happy if the polls were more realistic and didn't have Bright Eyes at all :P.

They are.

My opinion is better than everyone else's and this list is crap because it's not what you'd find in a shite magazine it's based off of what people here actually listen to.

Well I don't think so. I mean I hear your argument, but I think the list is disappointing in maybe this reason.

In no particular order:

1. Black Sabbath, for all they created, we're largely one dimensional. I think that for every "changes" there were several "war pigs." not that those weren't great songs, because they were, but Sabbath seemed to like where they were (in my opinion) and stuck there.

2. As much as I think Elliott Smith makes terrible music (to date I like one song), he is well liked and I certainly respect him for bridging what I would call (and therefore not up for debate) the emo kids to singer/songwriters. I feel they have a better chance of developing good taste with smith than they would with whatever trendy, transnational fad group they liked before.*

3. The Fall seems more out of place than the rest. If smith and bright eyes were shoved in my the interest groups of the young, than the Fall got rammed in there by the old (or those who want to seem old of which we have many). I don't know how well The Fall represents MB.

4. Bright Eyes is becoming a great act outside of his insipid fan girl base, and he's losing that ridiculous "whine." I think it shows we have a degree of taste, albeit pretentious and trendy.

5. Bowie speaks for himself.

*Yes I realize that you'd like to argue with this. And the reason is because I tend to make statements based on emotional response and not "fact" (read: prevailing conventional wisdom). Because I don't march in lock step with the cool kids, it would be obvious I'm open to attack with the statements I make. Say what you want, you'll argue with yourself on this one. Welcome to Music Banter, I'm the Big3.

I'd agree with that , I never thought in a million years they'd end up in 4rd place.

(And I didn't actually vote for them in the final round I went with Bowie)

I don't know too many people who are avid emo and Elliott Smith fans. I mean um there's Ethan and this kid who sat beside me at For the Kids Fest.

i dont understand why all the analytical hate & disappointment. it was a poll on taste, there's clearly mixed tastes from all over the forums, & elliott happened to be the one to bridge most of the distances & get the most votes. i hate black sabbath with a firey passion but im not gonna stamp my feet & complain, its fine. i geddit. was fun to try :] plus, everyone well got their knickers in a twist over it. was amusing.

But you can't really argue that its accurate when the minority acts rallied behind anyone in second place to box out certain acts.

so if there was a way to get people to vote without seeing who was in the lead, you reckon it wouldnta turned out this way?

you confuse me. i voted for who i thought was best, according to taste. if there was someone who hated bowie & voted elliott to spite, then still, they prefer elliott to bowie. which kinda, is the whole point of the poll, right? pick your favourite?

ick. it doesnt all have to be the classics that always win. :/ i liked this. it was fun. & its not like its gonna be taken any further than this site, really.

Interesting comparison but if you look at this weeks last FM MB Group you find that the top 5 most listened to are...

1. The Beatles
2. Radiohead
3. The Arcade Fire
=4. Elliott Smith
=4. Bright Eyes

So basically the 2 most disputed bands in this top 5 ARE the most listened to among the 45 members that are in the group. If you want the rest of the list you have to go down to ...

Bowie (18th)
Black Sabbath (32nd)
The Fall (116th)

So it could be argued that it's actually the bands who people think deserved to be in the top 5 that don't deserve it.