Sorry if its hard to read and follow. You can thank this terrific website for that.

Sarcasm!

Not bad. Most bands in the '60s were kind of equal in greatness and are interchangeable in position, but Velvet Underground should be higher just because they had a huge influence.

'70s- Thank God that you finally came to senses, went past bias, and put Joel lower. Led Zeppelin is definitely the #1.

'80s- Why do you hate to admit it? Michael Jackson's good stuff was pretty good actually. Sure, he's turned into a freak, but he wasn't bad. Madonna's the one I would hate to admit. I'm not huge on '80s music, so I'll ignore this one.

'90s- Long comment time ! Radiohead should be #1 (don't say bias or I'll smack you) because they consistently released globally high selling albums (even if not as high as some other bands', still in the multiplatinums), and Pearl Jam should be #2 because their popularity wasn't lasting, but they at least lasted the whole decade and sold three albums that sold at least 7 million in the U.S.. Nirvana shouldn't be #1 because they only lasted four years into the decade and only released two albums in the '90s, which both sold a lot less and had a somewhat smaller fanbase than some others. Nirvana's huge sales came in after Kurt Cobain died, and that's a factor that needs to be considered. If it went to inspiration, then Nirvana could possibly still be #1, but I say Radiohead should be #1, and Nirvana and pearl Jam could be tied for 3rd. Sonic Youth's too low, Pavement should be on there, as should My Bloody Valentine. Blur should be there instead of Oasis. I could keep going but you get the idea.

'00s- Coldplay?!?!?!? Dude, seriously? In the '90s, my placement of Radiohead was barely winning over the others, and bias may have edged it out, but in the '00s, there's no question of their superiority. "Kid A" is easily the best album of the decade along with "In Rainbows", "Hail to the Thief" and "Amnesiac" are both very good albums. Coldplay has been one of the most popular bands of the decade, but that's not all that greatness comes down to. They ripped off bands, but didn't influence any. no time for the rest, but '00s was just a problem at the top.

Drop the '90s and a few changes on the '00s, and they're good lists.

good lsit excpet motley crue should be over bon jovi if you're being bias-free on that certain motley crue owned bon jovi.

Why must you make your perfect argument list while I'm too lazy to argue? I'll have something by the end of this week. And of course I know the song, but you barred me. Ar$e.

The Monkees sucked. I don't know why I didn't say that. In a way, they were the first boy band: a complete corporate machine band.

also their retarded 12 year old fangirls booed jimi hendrix off the stage (dumbasses).

I'll comment in a few hours, gotta work. I have many a bone to pick though.

60s-
The Velvet Underground should be top 5, easily the most innovative and experimental band of all time. The Zombies should be in there, and both The Hollies and The Monkees out.

70s-
Pink Floyd, Elton John, Queen and The Eagles ahead of David Bowie? No chance. The Eagles shouldn't even be on the list. Nick Drake deserves a mention. The Clash are top 5 easy. Also, no other punk bands makes this list bullsh!t. Needs some Ramones, Sex Pistols and Wire. And why is Neil Young at 22? Top 10 easy.

80s-
It's not true about Jackson, Thriller and Off The Wall are his only great albums and only the former was from the 80s. Def Leppard, Phil Collins, Rush, Genesis & Journey are all ahead of R.E.M., Talking Heads and The Cure. The list lacks Pixies, Sonic Youth, Minor Threat, The Smiths and Joy Division. Why are Billy Joel, Van Halen, Phil Collins, Genesis, Bon Jovi, Journey and Peter Gabriel on the list. Also, you got no rap on there. I know you're mainly into classic rock, but you've tried to be objective and f*cked that up massively.

90s-
Radiohead should be number 1 then followed by Nirvana. Pearl Jam and the Chilis further down. Metallica & Guns n Roses should be off the list and U2 further down considering a majority of those bands 90s output was pretty poor (Achtung Baby is what saves U2). Queensryche, Sublime and Primus, off the list. Need more rap, Tupac should be there. Pavement should be on there, as should PJ Harvey, My Bloody Valentine, Blur and hell, even Korn.

00s-
This may be the worst. First, Coldplay? No f*cking chance. I'd put Radiohead first here as well, they are without a doubt the best band in the world. U2 haven't made a good album in seventeen years, their last two were especially poor and the band hasn't had a creative thought since Pop's Discothéque. Foo Fighters off the list, Chilis off the list, Incubus off the list, Audioslave definitely off the list, Dave Matthews Band, Linkin Park, Muse, Blink 182, The Killers, Velvet Revolver and Dream Theatre off the list. Arcade Fire are the best band to emerge from the decade. Other Garage revivalists such as The Libertines and especially The Strokes deserve a mention, but The Stripes are definitely the best of the bunch. If you're going to have Beck again, put Bjork on there as her recent output trumps Beck's. The Flaming Lips were better in the 90s and should be on that list, I take it you haven't heard The Soft Bulletin. Same goes for Weezer, better in the 90s. LCD Soundsystem deserve a mention, so do Spoon.

There, done.

I'm glad you have Linkin Park on the '00s list

Elmis- Tweek doesn't seem to have ever heard Sonic Youth, which is why he
s listed in the the '90s but not '80s. I didn't quite remember to mention The Pixies, but they should be top 10 at least. Once again, Tweek isn't really as much of a fan of the alternative Indie bands that you listen to, and I listen to a little more lightly.

And I'm glad that someone here agrees with me that Radiohead is the greatest band of the last 20 years.

Dee-
But Tweek has tried to be objective, that's why he's included Michael Jackson and Madonna, even though (as far as we know) he doesn't like them. Including them doesn't excuse the other mistakes he's made.

Elmis, I will argue tomorrow when I'm not feeling so lazy so get ready.

Dee, GNR > Radiohead. Bring it on.

f*ck yeah ryan! gnr kicks radiohead's ass anyday.

No chance. GNR have one great album and have spent the past 14 years working on a record which will ultimately disappoint. Radiohead have consistantly put out great records since 1995's The Bends. GNR aren't even GNR anymore, the band has nine members now for christ's sake. What kind of pathetic excuse for a band can't even hold together a lineup for more than one tour?

elmis: what about use your illusions 1 and 2. i find appetite for destrcution and use your illisions 1 and 2 better than a radiohead album.

OK Elmis, here we go.

60s - The Velvet Underground is not even close to The Doors, or The Who, or Hendrix. They may have been highly innovative, but the fact that you called them the MOST innovative of ALL TIME completely compromises anything you say about the 60s.

70s - David Bowie is not better than Pink Floyd, Pink Floyd sold mroe albums, was more influential, more popular, Floyd beats him in every way. Elton John's popularity is completely unmatched by anyone except Led Zep. The Eagles happen to have the highest sellnig album of all time and they were incredibly consistent. Queen is only slightly better than Bowie but still better. I know why you like Bowie higher, because he's got an alternative sound. You have to remember that alternative isn't everything, the same goes for Velvet Underground. Sex Pistosl and Ramoens would have been top 30 for sure, and The Clash was not even close to what the top 5, let alone the top 10 bands were. And just because Neil Young has some grunge doesn't make him a top 10 either.

80s - Again, you need to stop being so biased toward alternative. Do you know any of Rush's music? Have you ever heard 2112? R.E.M. couldn't do half the stuff Rush did. Rush was as experimental as they come. Same with The Cure, who is of course, alternative. Journey had incredible popularity, so did Genesis. And you said "Why are Billy Joel and Van Halen on the list??" That's completely insane, they are on the list because they are 2 of the greatest rock acts of all time. They are both 25 times better than The Pixies or Sonic Youth or Joy Division.

90s - No rap, because rap is not rock. It's a bunch of black guys threatening to slap b*tches and bust caps in asses. I'm looking forward to seeing your list.

00s - Again, I don't think there's much I can say til I see your list.

You made a response list to my albums list, I'd love to see your resposne list for this. It'll be much easier to argue that way.

And sorry guys, but GNR's popularity, album sales, and the simple fact that they REVIVED rock puts them ahead of Radiohead. Besides, Axl would kick Yorke's ass and Slash would kick Greenwood's ass.

Absolutely not. Thom Yorke can sing a thousand times better than Axl. Axl may have a bunch of different singing voices, but people focus too much on his versatility and forget the main point: all his voices suck. His high pitched squeal is one of the most damaging voices in history. And there IS a reason he was on the video of most annoying voices in history. Axl probably doesn't even know what falsetto is. And Yorke is a million times the songwriter and lyricist that Axl ever was or ever will be. Comparing Greenwood and Slash?...Okay, if you even try to compare them, you shouldn't be making any lists about music. Sorry. They're completely different guitarists. Slash is an old school rock 'n roll shredder, and Greenwood is an experimental guitarist. In the question, who is more innovational? The answer is johnny Greenwood all the way. Who know more about music? Greenwood. They're both good guitarists, but on the other hand, Ed O'Brien > Izzy any day, for the same reasons. And Johnny plays other instruments, and is also a fantastic composer of all types of music (ever seen the movie There Will Be Blood? Greenwood did all the scores for that).

And now a big question: who is more critically acclaimed, Radiohead or Guns 'N Roses? Radiohead. Radiohead has two albums ranked 5 stars by All Music Guide, GNR has one. Radiohead also has one 4.5 star album, and GNR has two. GNR has an album that AMG ranked three stars, and so does Radiohead, and GNR has one with 2.5 stars. Radiohead doesn't have that low. Radiohead has a consistent line up that has not changed since their inception. GNR had a few changes while their original band existed, and now this BS of 9 members?!?!?! From videos I can gather that Radiohead has a live performance a million times that of GNR.

http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
Suck on that. both are too low, but Radiohead is above GNR.

I don't know why you think GNR revived rock. That was the job of many bands, particularly those in the grunge movement, and GNR just helped. They didn't do it by themselves. And rock didn't die in the '80s, it went underground, and was as good as ever, and mostly better than GNR. I know you're going to argue that Guns 'n roses sold more records than Radiohead, but that's a pointless argument. Radiohead was a band that wanted to be a band. Guns 'n Roses was a band that only wanted money. If Axl wasn't such an exploiting b@stard, they never would have gotten so much publicity. When Radiohead released "Pablo Honey", many prepared for them to be the next Beatles. The fact is, they weren't as obsessed with fame as GNR, but they were still so good that they had tons of sales, but stayed a little lower on the extreme fame chart. Now let's go over the two bands' discographies. Radiohead, "Pablo Honey", okay but not great, "The Bends", amazing, 10/10, "OK Computer", their absolute best, and one of the best albums in history, "Kid A", once again, 10/10 (three in a row), unbelievable, "Amnesiac", exceptional, "Hail to the Thief", near perfect, awesome, and "In Rainbows", best since "Kid A", extremly good.

Guns 'n Roses, "Appetite For Destruction", their best, fantastic album, one of the best ever, "Use Your Illusion I" good not great, "Use Your Illusion II", once again, good but not great, and "The Spaghetti Incident", God-awful hunk of crap. Radiohead was are more innovative, talented, influential, and consistent than Guns 'n Roses. And if "Chinese Democracy" ever comes, it will disappoint. I guarantee it. Radiohead have been releasing good albums since 1993, and fantastic albums since 1995 (six fantastic as a matter of fact), Guns 'n Roses released one fantastic, two great, and one terrible.

Unlike you, I have the ability to be objective because I've actually heard "Appetite For Destruction", "Use Your Illusion I & II", and some of "TSI", which is to unbearable to sit through. You? You listened to the corporately designed "Best of Radiohead", which Radiohead themselves (along with their legions of fans) hated. You've never heard "The Bends", "OK Computer", "Kid A", "In Rainbows" or any other of their great albums, although you probably wouldn't like them because the only music you can listen to is pure rock or metal. If you had an open mind to heavy and soft stuff, pure rock, and experimental alternative stuff, you would agree with this whole post. If that seemed harsh, sorry, but it's true. Unlike Elmis, I don't think these are terrible lists. They're okay, and you got a lot of the important bands down, but you miss the meaning of "great", and that does not mean popularity. As our favorite irishmen said once (where the hell is he by the way?, probably camping out for the Dark Knight), "If popularity decided greatness, then Rihanna would be the greatest artist of the decade." Little did he know that this argument could be used against his favorite band. I will too make a list of the greatest artists of each decade. And don't be surprised when GNR is nowhere to be found.

hp- Please, no offense, but please shut up. You've never heard a Radiohead album before, so go listen to them before discussing this further. i've heard most of Gun 'n Roses, and you've heard none by Radiohead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
jX-fDKWGbRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
mE8MCqkeADQ

Which one of these is the better show? Don't lie.

And watch the whole video of Radiohead, especially around 3:13.

And let;s not let this piss us off and rip everyone apart to hate each other. After all, as musically involved as we all are, and as much as we try to make the best lists, and be objective, we are actually just teenagers making music lists,
not professionals.

axl> thom. axl rose hase hasthe one of the most versatile voices ever! how can you say no to him.

Axl has a disastrously overrated voice. He strains it to ridiculous amounts, often inhales instead of exhaling while singing, is only famous for his multiple voices because no other famous singers do it although many can much better, and overall he just isn't a good singer. He uses his voice improperly and has probably done more damage to his voice than one hundred other famous singers have ever done combined. Thom on the other hand uses his voice so properly that he can't damage his voice at all, and has ten times the range Axl has. Since my dad is an opera singer, who is compared to the five best opera singers in the world, I learn a lot about the proper ways to sing. Axl's high pitched squeal is probably more damaging in five minutes than shoving a rat down your throat and having it scratch away before pulling it out.

He doesn't have a good voice at all.

Axl actually sings it though, to me, Yorke's voice usually sounds like a whine.

And there's nothing to worry about dee, Elmis and I are having a heated yet controlled argument.

Yeah Dee, we're still buds, we just happen to be having a bit of a disagreement.

Tweek- Then you obviously know nothing about singing. Thom uses his voice more properly than any other rock singer. Let's get this straight: AXL DOES NOT SING!!! He doesn't know the proper way to sing, Yes, there is a proper way, there's a reason Yorke's voice is consistently the same since the early '90s and Axl's sounds like cap now.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w2M9aeMBV1w

Let's see Axl hold a 22 second long note like Yorke does during the bridge,. Axl can't sing.

http://laist.com/2008/04/29/irksome_and_ins.php?gallery2341Pic=3#gallery

Check out that list.

axl may not sing properly but he makes HIS WAY of singing better than thom yorke's.

No, simply no hp. It simply does not make a difference. Yorke is a better singer than Rose. End of story.

Apples and oranges everyone. They are two completely different singers, they're both great, but they're can't be compared.

I guess, they are very different, which is why I looked at how properly they use their voices to compare. And apples own oranges, so Thom Yorke is an apple and Axl is an orange. I get it !

Great list. But lots of the stuff I like goes unnoticed to the states, yet they have their fame elsewhere, or not. A few still are underrated, even in their home countries.

Rambling, sorry.

Very nice list