“I’ve never seen Oasis live but there couldn’t have been that many better than us.”

I gotcha. Like I say.......I like Oasis just as much as the next guy. I have a couple of their CD's.

 

Pretty good list, but Manic Street Preachers twice in the top 100?
Seems a little much. Violent Femmes first album should've been on there.

 

Two observations:
1) What the fuck is Q Magazine and what makes that list any more authoritative than the hundreds of other similar lists pumped out by music snobs on a frequent basis?
2) Seven of that list's top 11 were either Radiohead, Oasis or U2. It's hard to take an all-time greatest list seriously -- especially on a topic as subjective as music -- when it's obviously colored by one person's or one readership group's personal preferences.

 

It cannot be said enough how awful Radiohead is.

 

"music snob" = a band you like didn't make the list

"music snob" also = what all Rush fans call the rest of the world

 

"Music snob" = Pretentious assholes who preen on and on about how some obscure band from the late 1970s punk scene (or in this case a pretty good and influential band, but ultimately one that was bigger in its genre than the music world at large) was better than the Beatles, Elvis, Sinatra, the Rolling Stones, Springsteen and Led Zeppelin put together.
BECAUSE THEY ARE, THAT'S WHY!!! YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!!! GO BACK TO LISTENING TO YOUR POP MUSIC DRIVEL, SHEEPLE!

 

That list wasn't terrible, but you can tell it's a product of 2006 when you see two Coldplay albums on there. In 2006 that wouldn't have seemed outlandish. In 2015, it does.

 

Radiohead but no BTO! That's an OUTRAGE!

It's just a magazine list from nine years ago.

 

Q Magazine is to the British rock scene what Rolling Stone's musical coverage was/is to American rock.

 

What Rolling Stone was is not what Rolling Stone is. So which is Q Magazine like?

 

Also, Radiohead is awesome.