I know the video was funny and all when we were younger, but "Big Me" by Foo Fighters ****in' blows. And I'm not even a big fan of those guys. I will say that for a Rock band that's maintained such a huge following over the years, they're definitely not the worst, but that song can **** off.

The Clash has some stinkers, too.

owner of a lonely heart - yes

nuff said

Haha yeah I pretty much did aye. I was bored. And the C U N T deserved it!!!

YOU BETTER YOU BET - THE WHO, Awful song!

It was after Keith Moon died, what did you expect?

you joking? that's a great song

so?

It's not a bad song by any means, but it's not their greatest either. I guess they just shifted into a new dimension after he died.

i mean, Pete Townshend was their primary songwriter, I don't see how Moon's death would affect them in any way

but anyway, i'm biased, i even like stuff like It's Hard

I agree with everything said here. Judas Priest is horrible. As for Alice in chains, Layne Stayle had a tortured mixed with a tinge of emotion to his voice, which fitted his lyrics. What do you expect it was grunge, a lot of it was centred around emotional issues.

About every cover on emotive except for Imagine is horrible.

WHAT! Please elaborate on this point because I completely think that is poppycock.

all that Moon could do was add more colour to the sound

it's not like he had any say over the song structure

Yes, but structure is not what made the music great. Anybody can have structure, but it is just what you said, color is what makes things great.

And you can't say that one of the greatest drummers of all time didn't make that much of a difference in his music. Is that how you fell about all drummers that put style in their playing, and serve as more than just a metronome? That it all is just pointless and they should stick to the structure of the song.

If Alice in Chains had half the talent that Judas Priest had, they could've been a good band.

honestly, i can't even tell the difference between real drums and a drum machine

people had to drum back then cos of lack of technology

i'm being serious here, not taking the piss

Lol Judas Priest talented.

Any band that can put out at least half a dozen classic albums over the course of their discography, I'd call them talented. Given the fact that Judas Priest were repeatedly influential on metal is another feather in their bow, as is the fact that few metal vocalists had the vocal chops of Rob Halford.

How many albums they released has very little to do with it. Sure they were influential but doesn't necessarily mean they were talented. By that theory, Alice In Chains released 4 albums and had a huge impact on bands later to come. Does that make them talented? I don't think so. It was their expressive sound and Layne's unique, effective and impacting voice that meshed the band together. But I have to admit, new Alice In Chains suck.

Robert Halford didn't sound so distinctive from the other metal vocalists. Pretty much a cross between Ozzy and Bruce Dickinson. Their lyrical content was cliche as metal lyrics can get.

Talent is a subjective matter I guess.

I didn't give reference to how many albums they released, just to how many classic albums they released which does make a band talented, there's a difference.

I don't see that much relation voice wise between Rob Halford and Ozzy and Bruce Dickinson came after Rob Halford and if anything Rob Halford would've been an influence on him.

Fair enough Iron Maiden formed several years after. I really don't see what general albums and classic albums regards to talent. A lot of bands have written classic albums with disparaging criticism. It's a point of view taken from their composition of it. There's a lot of apparent comparisons to Black Sabbath, even UFO which didn't further their streamline of music. Vocals and lyrics where an obvious rip off from Black Sabbath. Nothing stood out or were incredibly distinctive besides the drummer. Personally I hated the vocals.

Judas Priest does deserve its respectiveness because of being influential. But I don't see how they are any more "talented" than Alice in Chains.

To create and perform classic albums a band needs to be talented, if they're not talented how can they create these albums, not just anybody can create great albums! A band or artist's talent is measured by how many classic albums they put out and this serves as a yardstick in their respected genre. Led Zeppelin super talented and Nickelback not talented at all, how do we measure that? By the quality of the music, which when put together creates albums. Despite some differences of opinion, there is usually a general consensus of what is regarded as being great by the fans of a certain genre.

The disparaging criticism that you're speaking of exists with most bands and is not normally associated at the artist themselves, but more at the album etc that is being criticized. A lot of classic albums were slammed when they first came out, but hindsight and taking the album in its historical context corrected that.

UFO a rip off of Black Sabbath, hey come on, two very different bands! One a band that submegred itself into the occult and virtually created a whole load of future sub-genres of metal whilst the other band were one of the finest examples of 1970s hard rock, despite starting off on dodgy ground with some proggy style space rock. How can you even begin to compare the vocals styles of Ozzy and Phil Mogg!!!.

As I said Judas Priest put out at least 6 classic albums, that are seen in metal circles as metal classics.

Was citing UFO as an influence to
Priest not Sabbath. As for classics, they were revered as excellent by critics, but that's questionable. I don't find any excellence musically in Priest (besides the drummer). Like Led Zeppelin, as you've breifly mentioned, critics hated them, yet their albums are considered classics after ages of influence. Talent doesn't really pertain to influences, it's about possessing special abilities. Two different and subjective things.

Anyway don't know if there's anything left to be said. I'd like to hear more if you do. Nice debating with ya. 👍

We could be here all night and as this is Saturday night here I'm off out;)

Have a drink for me then. :P

I think you are trolling me right now. There is no way that you can't tell the differences between a drum machine and an actual person playing. And the comment about the lack of technology was just the icing on the troll cake.

How the hell was that trolling?

I believe that he was trolling because the thought of that being his actual opinion is so preposterous that in my mind it is a literal impossibility to be true.

it's just an opinion

i don't really think I need to circumvent it or validate it

Ok, an opinion is an opinion, and everyone is entitled to one. Hell, I feel pretty much the same way about vocalists as you do drummers.

I think you would be surprised at how lifelike some drum programming can be. No doubt the vast majority of artificial drumming is obvious, but if you give the right person the right equipment they can create a perfectly real sounding drum track.