The Next Rock Tournament
- Thread starter IrishCanadian25
- Start date
Via Armbar
Has a pretty good dick.
As good as The Doors were, they were nothing more than amazing poetry set to average music. Queen has far more variety in their songs and a much deeper well of musical talent. Wthout being biased I would rate The Doors between 5-10. If I am being biased they would be somewhere between 20-25.
Cena's Little Helper
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Director's Tournament coming in late September/early October. Here are the regions:
1) Comedy
2) Action
3) Horror
4) The Auteurs
I hope you're looking forward to it as much as I am.
1) Comedy
2) Action
3) Horror
4) The Auteurs
I hope you're looking forward to it as much as I am.
IrishCanadian25
Going on 10 years with WrestleZone
Through a painstakingly democratic process.
Shadowmancer
I am The Last Baron
I want to be involved this time
Luther_Hull
Cunt.
Option 1, this way the 2000's region won't be filled with shit, generic metal bands like last time. Option 3 will miss out bands that are greater than the sum of their parts, and yeah, who cares who the greatest ever bassist is? Really?
Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
Kinda Sorta Old School
Luther has a good point, I'd like to change my vote from 3 to 1.
dd23beatlesfan1
Getting Noticed By Management
Queen defeated the Beatles in the last tournament?
Yep I'm going to have to participate this time around to see that doesn't happen. I love me some Queen, but umm....well I guess I'll save this part of the post for the upcoming tournament
As for which option to go with, option 3 would be "something different" but as people pointed out there's lots of flaws with the idea. Like people have pointed out, who really cares about the "greatest bassist?" You've got John Entwistle, Flea, James Jamerson, Bootsy Collins (if funk and R&B artists will be allowed in the tournament), Les Claypool, Chris Squire, etc. Great players, but overall not as interesting to discuss as guitarists, singers, or even drummers. And of course arguing for individual players just isn't as interesting as arguing for bands and their entire body of work and legacy on rock history. I don't want to debate whether David Gilmour is a better guitarist than Brian May. I want to debate on who is a greater band, Pink Floyd or Queen.
As for the genre or decade option, both could be potential problems as you could make an argument for the Rolling Stones, for example being in the 1960's and 1970's portion or U2 being in the '80s, '90s, or '00s portion. But genres really complicate things, as genres are such a subjective thing it's very confusing. The Beatles for example could be under psychedelic, folk rock, pop, rock and roll, etc. Rush could be under "Progressive Rock," "Hard Rock," etc. I could be getting too technical here though, as I'm not familiar with how previous tournaments were set up so I don't know if you guys are that specific with genres. But yeah I think you get my point.
I think decades would be easier to determine and more organized. If you simply go with the idea that each band will be put with whichever decade they debuted with you're good then. No one can dispute that the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and the Who started in the '60s and also had success in the '60s, so put them in the '60s region. And in some cases you could put a band with whichever decade they were their most successful in. Nirvana, for example debuted in the '80s, but clearly they are a '90s band.
If you go with decades, you have two rules to easily set up your "regions."
1. Each band should be put in whichever decade they were the most successful.
2. If a band was successful in more than one decade, simply pick which decade they debuted in. (ala Zeppelin, the Who, Aerosmith, REM, etc.)
Yep I'm going to have to participate this time around to see that doesn't happen. I love me some Queen, but umm....well I guess I'll save this part of the post for the upcoming tournament
As for which option to go with, option 3 would be "something different" but as people pointed out there's lots of flaws with the idea. Like people have pointed out, who really cares about the "greatest bassist?" You've got John Entwistle, Flea, James Jamerson, Bootsy Collins (if funk and R&B artists will be allowed in the tournament), Les Claypool, Chris Squire, etc. Great players, but overall not as interesting to discuss as guitarists, singers, or even drummers. And of course arguing for individual players just isn't as interesting as arguing for bands and their entire body of work and legacy on rock history. I don't want to debate whether David Gilmour is a better guitarist than Brian May. I want to debate on who is a greater band, Pink Floyd or Queen.
As for the genre or decade option, both could be potential problems as you could make an argument for the Rolling Stones, for example being in the 1960's and 1970's portion or U2 being in the '80s, '90s, or '00s portion. But genres really complicate things, as genres are such a subjective thing it's very confusing. The Beatles for example could be under psychedelic, folk rock, pop, rock and roll, etc. Rush could be under "Progressive Rock," "Hard Rock," etc. I could be getting too technical here though, as I'm not familiar with how previous tournaments were set up so I don't know if you guys are that specific with genres. But yeah I think you get my point.
I think decades would be easier to determine and more organized. If you simply go with the idea that each band will be put with whichever decade they debuted with you're good then. No one can dispute that the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and the Who started in the '60s and also had success in the '60s, so put them in the '60s region. And in some cases you could put a band with whichever decade they were their most successful in. Nirvana, for example debuted in the '80s, but clearly they are a '90s band.
If you go with decades, you have two rules to easily set up your "regions."
1. Each band should be put in whichever decade they were the most successful.
2. If a band was successful in more than one decade, simply pick which decade they debuted in. (ala Zeppelin, the Who, Aerosmith, REM, etc.)
1 or 2 not 3
1. Genre specific seems to really cover all the bases and sidesteps a majority of the problems. Lets just try not to get too specific and niche with the categories or else we'll have 30 sub-genres just for Metal alone...
2. Decades may be good but could we perhaps do "eras" rather than specific 10 year gaps? I know on the surface their doesn't look to be much difference but in some instances their are. Rock & Roll of '51 is different than '60 and the early 60's sound is very much changed by the time '69-'70 rolls around. I dunno, perhaps that just takes us back to number 1...
3. This option is interesting but removes the synergy of what group/band music is and can be. Deciding who the greatest bass player, while perhaps somewhat entertaining (Wooten), means little. There are plenty of musical acts where the whole is somehow infinitely greater than the sum of their parts.
1. Genre specific seems to really cover all the bases and sidesteps a majority of the problems. Lets just try not to get too specific and niche with the categories or else we'll have 30 sub-genres just for Metal alone...
2. Decades may be good but could we perhaps do "eras" rather than specific 10 year gaps? I know on the surface their doesn't look to be much difference but in some instances their are. Rock & Roll of '51 is different than '60 and the early 60's sound is very much changed by the time '69-'70 rolls around. I dunno, perhaps that just takes us back to number 1...
3. This option is interesting but removes the synergy of what group/band music is and can be. Deciding who the greatest bass player, while perhaps somewhat entertaining (Wooten), means little. There are plenty of musical acts where the whole is somehow infinitely greater than the sum of their parts.