For classic rock bands, /mu/:
Loves:
>The Beatles
>Beach Boys
>Pink Floyd
Abhors:
>The Rolling Stones
>Led Zeppelin
>Queen
It seems to me that /mu/ has somehow collectively agreed on the idea that rock bands most focused on showmanship and live performance, especially with a frontman, are somehow inferior than bands which have albums and studio work as their definitive statements (the Stones, for example, were always known for their live performances, while the Beatles were known more for their studio experiments on records as opposed to their live chops). Why is this? Is this because /mu/ generally talks about albums as opposed to live shows? Even then, the bands of the latter group still do have acclaimed releases. It's clearly not a case of "dadrock is bad", since all groups I've just mentioned are dadrock in the first place.
Opinions, /mu/?
>>60563845
don't do this.
Don't assume everyone on /mu/ loves these bands.
sometimes a singular vision is more interesting than a shared/compromised result
keyword: sometimes
>>60563845
Live shows are only worth anything if you're there watching them. None of these bands will ever do a live show again. The only thing we have from these guys are the albums. Why would we focus on their live shows if their live shows are over?
Pink Floyd was famous for their showmanship and live shows, being the pioneers of the space rock laser show and eventually developing highly intricate live performances involving things like planes crashing. The Wall is frequently given an example of a great live show.
Even very early psych Floyd treated live shows as something to put a great deal of effort in. At one point during the middle of a show they all left the stage, came back dressed as farmers with axes and logs, started chopping the logs to the rhythm, until they made a small table with chairs and had a tiny meal, then picked up the pieces, went offstage, and came back as Pink Floyd.
David Bowie is arguably the King of /mu/ and his showmanship is legendary.
Those bands aren't liked as much because they aren't as good.
>>60564009
goddamn Pink Floyd are so based
>>60563845
Is Led Zep a frontman band? I thought they were all loved pretty equally.
>>60564009
sauce to second paragraph, this sounds hilarious.
>>60565036
Sorry m8, I literally only know that from an anecdote Genesis P-Orridge told.
http://thequietus.com/articles/14337-genesis-breyer-p-orridge-favourite-albums?page=14
>>60563845
/mu/ doesn't hate the stones
>>60565013
The Stones aren't exactly a frontman band either. I mean, yeah, Mick Jagger is obviously A frontman but when you think of the Stones you think of Jagger, Richards, Jones and possibly Wyman, Watts, Taylor, Wood, etc.
>>60563845
The beatles are fine
The beach boys are fine
Early Pink Floyd is tops, mid is fine, latter is shit.
The Stones are the best rock band on earth
Zeppelin are fine
Queen are fine
>>60565284
>The Stones are the best rock band on earth
Jesus Christ how are you capable of breathing?
>>60565303
Well, I mean straight "Rock" not "Hard rock" or punk or anything. My favourite band are the talking heads.
Rush and Queen are two bands that I think deserve massive respect and they don't get it on /mu/. It really is absurd.
>>60566717
Queens is the le wrong generation king band fagget
>>60565284
I do not understand the appeal of Stones
