Sofie
Member
*Nutter!*
Posts: 8,755
|
Post by Sofie on Nov 4, 2004 20:51:32 GMT 1
They're certainly not one of the top 64 bands of all time in terms of popularity and success. Are we doing this out of real popularity or just popularity on here as that would make a difference. Even though Bill Haley & The Comets have been missed out and they were (IIRC) a rather successful band... |
|
|
|
Post by dandyhighwayman on Nov 4, 2004 20:52:37 GMT 1
Oh, I give up.. It seems like you lot are just doing it out of popularity on here  That's not true though - if we were doing it out of popularity on here then the Wedding Present or Inspiral Carpets would probably make it - I certainly like both for one. It's just that I thought the point of this was to try and establish the 64 biggest groups before putting them into the knockout rounds and, sales wise, neither of them would probably make it. I have no particular objections to them being added again if you really want them to be. |
|
|
|
Post by dandyhighwayman on Nov 4, 2004 20:53:49 GMT 1
Even though Bill Haley & The Comets have been missed out and they were (IIRC) a rather successful band... Agreed. They probably should be included - someone has to think of them first though and I assume nobody's thought of them before you have have they? |
|
Sofie
Member
*Nutter!*
Posts: 8,755
|
Post by Sofie on Nov 4, 2004 20:58:06 GMT 1
Agreed. They probably should be included - someone has to think of them first though and I assume nobody's thought of them before you have have they? Maybe Would it be worth me going through my chart book tomorrow and just picking out really popular bands and doing it that way? But, my book only goes to the end of 2003, which might be a problem, but I don't know... |
|
|
|
Post by dandyhighwayman on Nov 4, 2004 21:01:40 GMT 1
Maybe Would it be worth me going through my chart book tomorrow and just picking out really popular bands and doing it that way? But, my book only goes to the end of 2003, which might be a problem, but I don't know... It may be worth doing that if you don't mind (although I'm running the risk of taking over Greendemon's idea so I don't want to be too bossy!!!) - guess she'll have the final say as to who makes it and who doesn't! |
|
Sofie
Member
*Nutter!*
Posts: 8,755
|
Post by Sofie on Nov 4, 2004 21:02:48 GMT 1
It may be worth doing that if you don't mind (although I'm running the risk of taking over Greendemon's idea so I don't want to be too bossy!!!) - guess she'll have the final say as to who makes it and who doesn't! Even though obviously, it's not just Jade's decision... |
|
|
|
Post by dandyhighwayman on Nov 4, 2004 21:06:51 GMT 1
Even though obviously, it's not just Jade's decision... Yeah, I guess. It is worth you doing though - you may bring up some glaring ommissions that nobody has thought of yet, like you did with Bill Haley |
|
|
|
Post by greendemon on Nov 4, 2004 21:20:53 GMT 1
It seems like you lot are just doing it out of popularity on here er, no, because then they WOULD be in... also note that i am the one doing this list and some of my favourite bands (elbow, hell is for heroes, biffy clyro etc.) have been left out because to even think of them as among the top 64 bands of all time in terms of overall popularity and success is clearly rather stupid... |
|
Sofie
Member
*Nutter!*
Posts: 8,755
|
Post by Sofie on Nov 4, 2004 21:22:19 GMT 1
Surely Fleetwood Mac should be on the list...?
|
|
|
|
Post by greendemon on Nov 4, 2004 21:23:42 GMT 1
Maybe Would it be worth me going through my chart book tomorrow and just picking out really popular bands and doing it that way? But, my book only goes to the end of 2003, which might be a problem, but I don't know... if you like, although we have more than enough as it is, and i'm sure we'll have everyone who should be on that list already... and since this is very much an all-time list, the fact that 2004 info would be excluded isn't a problem at all... |
|
|
|
Post by greendemon on Nov 4, 2004 21:24:33 GMT 1
yes, i suppose they should...
|
|
|
|
Post by LittleChristmasTurkey on Nov 4, 2004 21:55:12 GMT 1
I would suggest culling the following, who's singles performances have been pretty dismal (I don't know much about ablums so if any have had absolutely major rar rar albums then feel free to disagree):
Feeder, Idlewild, Joy Division, Muse, Pixies, Ramones and Tom Petty.
|
|
|
|
Post by dandyhighwayman on Nov 4, 2004 21:59:33 GMT 1
I would suggest culling the following, who's singles performances have been pretty dismal (I don't know much about ablums so if any have had absolutely major rar rar albums then feel free to disagree): Feeder, Idlewild, Joy Division, Muse, Pixies, Ramones and Tom Petty. Maybe we could combine Joy Divison and New Order into one?!!!  - That would create an extra spot. In terms of sales, I would agree. However, JD, Pixies & Ramones are important bands (mind you, so are Velvet Underground and they're not included). |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 4, 2004 23:24:37 GMT 1
Joy Division and New Order are kind of different and unique,I'd like both in really...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 4, 2004 23:26:15 GMT 1
Why though? They've had loads of hits (including 17 Top 40...) and are pretty successful... 12 of those were special though, I would not think the wedding present deserve to be in imo, inspiral carpets, I would prefer... |
|
|
|
Post by greendemon on Nov 5, 2004 4:00:16 GMT 1
I would suggest culling the following, who's singles performances have been pretty dismal (I don't know much about ablums so if any have had absolutely major rar rar albums then feel free to disagree): Feeder, Idlewild, Joy Division, Muse, Pixies, Ramones and Tom Petty. agreed about tom petty... problem is... feeder, idlewild and muse are really at the forefront of modern bands, and have been very successful outside merely singles... so if we get rid of them, who do we have to represent the late 90s and early 00s on the list? |
|
|
|
Post by greendemon on Nov 5, 2004 4:01:08 GMT 1
Joy Division and New Order are kind of different and unique,I'd like both in really... me too - but combining them might be the only option if we want to see more bands in... |
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Nov 5, 2004 7:40:00 GMT 1
64 is too few.
Get an alphabetically sorted list and I'll be able to see who is missing without looking through them.
Status Quo should be included anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Nov 5, 2004 7:41:56 GMT 1
and Blondie.
Anyway, just put them into a column on an Excel spreadsheet and then sort ascending.
|
|
Sofie
Member
*Nutter!*
Posts: 8,755
|
Post by Sofie on Nov 5, 2004 8:44:45 GMT 1
agreed about tom petty... problem is... feeder, idlewild and muse are really at the forefront of modern bands, and have been very successful outside merely singles... so if we get rid of them, who do we have to represent the late 90s and early 00s on the list? Not alot... Neil, I think you'll find that they are in alphabetical order... |
|
- That would create an extra spot.
