FM Best Artists in the History of Rock and Roll (Tournament Page 1986- Present)

Okay the poll you've all been waiting for is now open. The match-ups are as follows:

1 Nirvana
vs
16 Green Day

8 Foo Fighters
vs.
9 Jane's Addiction

5 Rage Against the Machine
vs.
12 The White Stripes

4 Pearl Jam
vs.
13 Nine Inch Nails




2 Soundgarden
vs.
15 The Beastie Boys

7 Red Hot Chili Peppers
vs.
10 Radiohead

6 REM
vs.
11 Fugazi

3 The Pixies
vs.
14 Guns N' Roses

First poll up now.

I was tempted to vote for Green Day if only to imagine the aghast expression on Geezer's face when he saw the results.

Haha, they DO have 2 votes Roodey. Not enough to be a factor in this poll, but still, I am kinda surprised they have any, you are right.

Green Day musters up 3 votes but it is not enough to take down mighty Nirvana.

Up next, number 8 Foo Fighters takes on number 9 Jane's Addiction.

Again Geez, you are going through these polls too quickly. Give at least 24hrs per poll to give us all a chance to vote. Not that it would have affected the poll anyway, but give us the option.

i probably check the boards enough, that i kinda like the fast-pace.. but surfer has a point..

Can I take a pass on this round? I don't want to encourage either Foo Fighters or Jane's Addiction into thinking that they even deserve to make it to the second round.

look at this way, donte: at least one of these shitty acts will be kicked out with this poll.. so that's a good thing

The Way I have been moving the polls on Surfer, is that If there is no way that a band can win by the time there are 16 total votes, I end the poll. There really aren't going to be more than 16 people voting in the polls. There never has been. Even the actor polls don't get more than 18, and they have more interested people, because it is a movie site afterall.

For example, if a band is winning 9-3, I will call it in favor of the 9. Even if every remaining vote went to the 3 (which it likely wouldn't because there is usually a reason that they are losing by that much) it would still only give them a 9-7 loss.

I know its possible for bands to make a miraculous comeback, but really, leaving them up serves no purpose. Its like voting for Ralph Nader.

If the poll is close, like The Ramones was with The Specials for a while, I will leave it up because there is an actual chance for the losing band to make a comeback.

I guess I'm just on here too much that seeing a band get its ass mercilessly handed to them all day when it has no chance of coming back seems pointless to keep it up. There's really no difference between a 10-1 loss and a 9-7 loss. I may be calling the election before the votes are counted, but at least the right man is still elected.

Now that we are into the second round in two of the polls, I did plan on leaving them up a little longer, because I expect closer polls. The first round was kind of just a formality, which was proven by the utter lack of upsets, and the lack of polls that were even close. I will leave them up a longer.

Now, on with the show!

I do understand your point Geez, there is no point carrying on when the inevitable will result, but 24 hours is not too long. W's polls have gone of for days upon days sometimes, which is a little long, but 24 hours is nothing. You say EVERYONE voted because there were 16 votes counted. However, I didn't get the chance to vote, and I'm sure many other who live outside the US (and one the other side of the planet) didn't either. 24 hours is all I'm asking, and if you can do that for round two I would be grateful.

Ok, I'll see what I can do. I just can't see the point of leaving up a poll that is 11-1, like the Talking Heads poll vs. Devo. This is obviously going to take a long time to finish as it is, but I will keep them up longer. If it were 24 hours per vote, that would be a minimum of like 16 days to finish the polls. To put that in perspective, we've only been up and running at this site for 14 days.

geezer9687 wrote:Ok, I'll see what I can do. I just can't see the point of leaving up a poll that is 11-1, like the Talking Heads poll vs. Devo. This is obviously going to take a long time to finish as it is, but I will keep them up longer. If it were 24 hours per vote, that would be a minimum of like 16 days to finish the polls. To put that in perspective, we've only been up and running at this site for 14 days.

It's not like we are in a rush to finish it though, is it? 16 days is not too long, man, we spent longer collating the nominations!! And unless you are thinking of leaving the site before the new year, I'm sure this will offer the most comprehensive and broad spectrum of votes.

NSpan wrote:look at this way, donte: at least one of these shitty acts (Edited by leestu: Foo Fighters & Janes Addiction) will be kicked out with this poll.. so that's a good thing

(I am stunned speechless, gobsmacked and other such cliches)

You don't like either of these, or at least appreciate their quality?

There I was finding it hard to choose because they both are (or were in the case of Jane's) sooooo good.

And that is why there are no right or wrong opinions in the world of music. I feel how you feel, NSpan, about a couple of match-ups in this tournament. Like Prince vs. The Violent Femmes. I also have very little opinion on The Talking Heads vs. Devo, and The Smiths vs. The Sex Pistols, because I don't particularly like any of them, except for a couple songs. Honestly, the entire bottom half of the 1976-1985 poll is incredibly weak, with the exception of course with The Ramones. If it were up to me, they would role into the finals of that era without a single challenge, but that's why we have a variety of opinions in the voting process.

I'm with you Leestu, Ritual De Lo Habitual was a fantastic album. And although the foos have been going down hill a little with only the odd decent single per album since There Is Nothing Left To Lose, I still think they are worthy of this poll (although I would have preferred Smashing Pumpkins in either of their places...)

geezer9687 wrote:And that is why there are no right or wrong opinions in the world of music. I feel how you feel, NSpan, about a couple of match-ups in this tournament. Like Prince vs. The Violent Femmes. I also have very little opinion on The Talking Heads vs. Devo, and The Smiths vs. The Sex Pistols, because I don't particularly like any of them, except for a couple songs. Honestly, the entire bottom half of the 1976-1985 poll is incredibly weak, with the exception of course with The Ramones. If it were up to me, they would role into the finals of that era without a single challenge, but that's why we have a variety of opinions in the voting process.

Actually, I think The Ramones are probably one of the weakest acts to have made it this far. A one hit band, and although they may have been one of the first to start the punk movement, there were far better bands which followed.

One hit! One hit! If my brother is ever in New Zealand, I'll remind him to pay you a visit and rip you a new one for such Blasphemy. He would be better prepared to make this argument, but he's not on here, so I'll do my best.

Now before I start, I would like to state that all of what I am saying is my opinion.

Ok, now that that is out of the way. First things first: They are a P-U-N-K band. They do not have to be talented. They do not have to show musical range. They were perfect for their genre. They were rude, crude, anti-establishment heroes of the counter-culture, saying fuck you to all the disco bull shit that was popular at the time. They may not have invented Punk, but without them, it wouldn't have went anywhere. You wouldn't have the Clash, The Sex Pistols, or most of the other British Punk Bands if they had not been there to show what could be done.

The point of being punk was not to have hits. They could have no hits for all I care, but they have tons of amazing songs. I'll take a page from NSpan's book and say that you could not hit their high points in less than 4 full albums. (Which of course would not be 3 hours, more like 2 max, but that's because they are a punk band who did punk right, short, fast and in your face).

I am going to attempt to keep this limited as far as their better songs goes. Hearing that "One Hit" line makes a little part of me die this time.

# Blitzkrieg Bop
# Beat On The Brat
# Judy Is A Punk
# I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend
# 53rd & 3rd
# Let's Dance
# I Don't Wanna Walk Around With You
# Glad To See You Go
# Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment
# I Remember You
# Oh Oh I Love Her So
# Sheena Is A Punk Rocker
# Suzy Is A Headbanger
# Pinhead
# Commando
# Cretin Hop
# Rockaway Beach
# We're A Happy Family
# Teenage Lobotomy
# Do You Wanna Dance?
# Surfin' Bird
# I Just Want To Have Something To Do
# I Wanted Everything
# I'm Against It
# I Wanna Be Sedated
# She's The One
# Do You Remember Rock 'n' Roll Radio?
# Rock 'N' Roll High School
# The KKK Took My Baby Away
# She's A Sensation
# Wart Hog
# Howling At The Moon (Sha-La-La)
# Outsider
# Highest Trails Above
# Psycho Therapy
# My Brain Is Hanging Upside Down
# I Believe In Miracles
# Pet Sematary

And like you with your extensive list of bands you nominated for the final era, I took time and narrowed this down considerably. In my opinion, your statement could not possibly be any more wrong.

And this is what makes me so proud I went ahead with this idea. Because there are no right or wrong answers, just some really strong opinions that are great to argue over.

And The Smiths suck

The Ramones are like KISS: four Jewish guys from New York who can really rock.

silversurfer19 wrote:I'm with you Leestu, Ritual De Lo Habitual was a fantastic album. And although the foos have been going down hill a little with only the odd decent single per album since There Is Nothing Left To Lose, I still think they are worthy of this poll (although I would have preferred Smashing Pumpkins in either of their places...)

So your the other one who voted for Janes Addiction. I used to love going crazy on the dance floor to Stop. Ritual De Lo Habitual got heavy rotation in my loungeroom for a few years.

Actually I voted tfor the Foos, but I have a lot of respect for Jane's Addiction. It was a tough choice. There must be a mystery fan out there....

The Foo Fighters win easily over Jane's Addiction. Up next, Rage Against the Machine vs. The White Stripes.

You have 24 hours.

geezer9687 wrote: First things first: They are a P-U-N-K band. They do not have to be talented. They do not have to show musical range.

# Blitzkrieg Bop

Well in that case then they definitely win the poll where the question is "What is the most popular yet least talented band (apart from Britney Spears) in the history of music?

And yes, one hit. The above is the only song title I can list.

Did you entirely miss the point I made about punk bands not needing hits?

Britney Spears is not music. She's an abomination.

There are plenty of bands that have made this tournament that have had few technical "hits." But they also didn't define a genre like the Ramones did. If you want to play the "I can only identify one song thing" (or none for that matter, I'll give you a list of my own:

Sam Cooke
The Animals
The Velvet Underground
The Band
The Smiths
Joy Division
Devo
The Violent Femmes
The Specials
The Pixies
Radiohead
Fugazi

And if this shows musical ignorance, so be it. My point in listing these is that just because you may not be familiar with a particular band's library of songs, that doesn't mean they are not deserving of being here. If you are not a fan of the band, or the style of music, you obviously won't know more songs than the one you have heard in a million television commercials. The Ramones received the second most nominations of any band in their period, that is why they have the number 2 seed. And your statement of saying that they are the "most popular and least talented," well wouldn't they have needed to have more than one "hit" in order for them to be popular? They were never popular. Punk wasn't popular. You know who was popular? The fucking BeeGees. And the Ramones have more ability and raw musical emotion and stage presence in Johnny's little finger than any of those shitty Disco acts could ever wish to have.

(Oops forgot to Quote for this post. I was referring to the Foo Fighter/Jane's addiction post earlier)

I don't really like Smashing Pumpkins either. I just don't think any of these bands made any impact on music other than to sell copies of their album. I personaly liked Pornos for Pyros better than Jane's.

geezer9687 wrote: Did you entirely miss the point I made about punk bands not needing hits?

No I did not. I agree but I just see punk music as the bad guitar players trying to make rock.

"I can play three cords, can I be in a band?"
"No."
"Well, what if I am really pissed off while I play the three cords?"
"Ok then."

geezer9687 wrote: Britney Spears is not music. She's an abomination.

At least we agree here.

geezer9687 wrote: And the Ramones have more ability and raw musical emotion and stage presence in Johnny's little finger than any of those shitty Disco acts could ever wish to have.

Stage presence and emotion sure. Ability nope. The Ramones had almost no ability to make music. They just had emotion. Fortunately for them, they became famous almost because of their lack of ability. Clean, precise punk music would not appeal to the people who like punk music.