Best Rock Band Face Offs

Megadeth. I used to prefer Metallica because of Dave Mustaine's vocals but after their first two albums, Metallica's music lost its dynamics and they relied on one riff, one verse and one chorus melody to compose their songs, there are no breaks, no unexpected moments. Sad but True is a prominent example: every single note has the same volume and tone, there are no speed changes, and the Taddaddadda tara rara rara riff is repeated through its whole running time. Megadeth didn't even do this in their commercial era.

Metallica. I've gotten more used to Megadeth as going back and looking at Megadeth, I've realize Dave Mustaine is not a bad singer and is overhated but nonetheless James is still a much better singer.
Also I think the musicians of Metallica are more talented than that of Megadeth.

This rivalary is a headache to a metallica or megadeth fan. I like them both but I like metallica better. I like kirks solos better but I think dave is a better guitarist. dave's solos just need to sound cleaner.

These matchups aren't even accurate! Led Zeppelin vs Pink Floyd (Led Zeppelin wins), The Who vs Jimi Hendrix (The Who wins) Van Halen vs Aerosmith (Van Halen wins), Nirvana vs Pearl Jam (both overrated who cares) Guns N' Roses vs Poison (Guns N' Roses is better but way overatted), Bon Jovi vs U2 (Tie? ), Matchbox Twenty vs Marron 5 (Matchbox in a close one), Queen vs AC/DC (too close to call), and of course the two best of all time The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (Stones roll over the Beatles)

The Beatles. (I wonder why they are so often debated as the best? Why are they so famous? They are overrated? They must be really great since this has been such a long debate.) Every time a new band comes along they are always compared to The Beatles. Why? Because everyone is trying to dethrone them.

To me that's pretty easy. Admittedly, I don't know The Stones too well, but what I know sounds really unimaginative and lazy to me for the most part. I'd pick The Beatles every day.

Though close, I feel that The Nirvana Unplugged album is what really sets Nirvana on top of the rock genre. In the same vein of The Beatles, with Nirvana you see an evolution. Nirvana began as mostly screaming nonsense with the only real point to make good music, as all the bandmembers have said. By In Utero, and their final performances, Nirvana's music became an art, with stunning music and deep lyrics. Guns n Roses has a great range, but their music doensn't go farther than that really, it just doesn't have as much of an emotion impact, especially if you watch the unplugged performance from Nirvana.

Nirvana is probably better. They were a tad overrated but guns and roses was nothing particularly special or revolutionary, just sort of aerosmith + hair metal. I don't particularly love nirvana but they were quite significant.

Nirvana. Again, I've gotten more used to Guns N' Roses as I've stopped hating them once I listened to the song Civil War and their cover of Knocking On Heavens Door but Nirvana is still the better band easily.

This is a hard question but Freddie mercury is the best vocalist and jimmy page is the best guitarist. John Bonham is best drummer and john deacon is best bassist. I think it's a tie because they are both good bands with good members

Led Zeppelin was more critically and commercially successful. Had better albums (night at the opera is the only queen album people consider great and even then you don't see it considered one of the best albums of all time. On the other hand led zep had six amazing albums). Zep were more influential. They were better live (queen had a lot of energy and were great entertainers. But Led Zeppelin would jam. Led Zeppelin bootlegs are more in demand than queen ones). Page > may, bonham > the queen drummer(I forget his name), jpj > deacon, plant is about equal to mercury. Led zep basically defined hard rock and were hugely versatile. Queen was also quite versatile but they generally kept the pop song structure while interpreting it in many different ways with a lot of creative arrangements (much like the Beatles), Led Zeppelin varied their instrumentation/ sound a lot but not nearly as much as queen but had a larger variety of strung structures in my opinion, (blues ballads folksy stuff etc.) led zep occasionally stole stuff but they didn't always steal hugely important stuff (like they stole some lyrics on whole lot of love but who gives the songs not about the lyrics) but their stealing a song doesn't make their song any worse. in my opinion zep just produced better music than queen

Sure, Nirvana was more influential, but Alice in Chains is one of the most amazing bands of all time. Nirvana did pretty basic stuff, where as Alice in Chains was much more complicated and had more variety. So, Alice In Chains

I'm going to pick Alice in Chains, because while Nirvana revolutionized grunge rock, Alice in Chains perfected it.

Who would say such question that obvious. Nirvana because they rock harder than AIC.

Judas Priest stinks of greed. In the 1980s they made glam rock, in 1997, groove metal, a nu-metal song in 2001 and a symphonic metal album in 2008. Always what was popular at the time.

Judas Priest has a snoozefest 13-minute doom metal epic and apart from that, didn't even approach the territory of Steve Harris's epics like Hallowed Be Thy Name, Fear of the Dark, Dance of Death, When the Wild Wind Blows etc. Cathedral Spires could have been their best song but the last 3 minutes is a painful repeat.

Influence doesn't count when it comes to judging which band is better, even though Judas Priest is the older and more influential metal band. Iron Maiden was still very influential towards power metal and early Slayer to say two examples.

Iron Maiden wrote songs about a man who committed suicide because of being afraid of the apocalypse, the multitude of faith and science, some lyrics based on sci-fi novels or historical events. Some of Judas Priest's lyrical genius masterpieces include a song about a male genital so huge it doesn't fit into a mouth and forcing someone to have oral sex. I know, Judas Priest has some decent lyrics and Iron Maiden has weaker but you see the point.

Iron Maiden knows how to arrange a tracklist and often keeps the best song last, Judas Priest adds bonus tracks from other album sessions that sound completely out of place and often close with weak songs.

System Of A Down because the Serj simply has a better voice than Corey. Yeah, Corey has a 5 octave range but a lot of his screaming feels forced while Serj's actually feels intense and let's not forget Serj's clean vocals which are also better than Corey's clean vocals as well.
I also prefer the overall music of System of a Down to that of Slipknot.

System of a Down? Haha...
Slipknot is kickass, Slipknot's first two albums is a KILLER!
Slipknot 4 Life! Maggot til I die. M/
Stay (Sic) fellow maggots!

Slipknot is the best. Stay sic fellow maggots!

Van Halen. Aerosmith has gotta be one of the most annoying Rock bands I've ever listened to.

This is so obvious. Queen because they have the best singers. Freddie mercury is best vocalist and Brian may is best guitarist . So I vote queen by a mile

Queen because Aerosmith is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to popular Classic Rock bands. Steven TyLer's vocals can be awful sometimes. Freddie Mercury, on the other hand, had great vocals.

HA HA HA! Queen would totally win. No Aerosmith song can match ANY Queen song! Are you crazy? Freddie's got the voice, Brian wins for guitar, Deacy SO wins for bass no matter what and Roger is going to SMASH Roger!

Green Day! No hate on Nickelback though.

Green Day by a Mile

Pink Floyd unless you've never been high.

Pink Floyd are awesome! And so are Rush!

Both are good, but I prefer Pink Floyd.

People don't seriously have to think about this, do they? The Beatles, any day of the year.

Queen any day

Pearl Jam. Nirvana is so overrated!

Pearl Jam is so much better.

Pearl Jam for me

Incomparable Rise Against is a Punk/Hardcore Band and Thirty Seconds to Mars is an Alternative Rock Band.
Thirty Seconds to Mars easily wins.

Winner is 30 Seconds To Mars. Just my a little.

Rise Against would win

I would've chose Three Days Grace if Adam stayed. I have nothing against Matt, in fact, I actually think he's doing great with the band, but the only vocalist that can even come close to Ben Burnley in my opinion is Adam Gontier.

Great Bands. These bands produced amazing songs such as Breath, Give Me A Sign, and I Will Not Bow by Breaking Benjamin. Break, Never To Late, and I Hate Everything About You by Three Days Grace. The winner is... Breaking Benjamin

Breaking Benjamin, but Three Days Grace is great too.

Black sabbath because they rock harder and Ozzy osbourne has the best voice for metal music.

Iron Maiden. I don't like Ozzy's voice.

Peppers win easily. Nirvana doesn't have enough music or diversity to win. I like both but the pepper bring way more to the table.

Red hot was bad for their first couple of albums, then got dope. Nirvana was always good. I say nirvana, but who knows who woulda really been better.

Red Hot Chili Peppers, but my decision might do more with quantity than quality.

Deep Purple for pretty much the same reasons I prefer Megadeth over Metallica. Black Sabbath's riffs are repeated too much and the lack of variation makes it exhausting to listen to them (notable example: Electric Funeral).

Deep Purple - better musicianship, better live.

Sabbath by a long shot. More inflential, better albums, better musicians, more original

Now I'd like to see this battle!

Hmm.. This is a tough one.

Uh, that's an interesting one. Two of my favorite classic rock bands. I'd probably pick The Who, because of Tommy and Who's Next, but Led Zeppelin is also a powerhouse.

Their music is incredibly similar. Moon vs Bonham, Roger vs Robert. That'd be amazing.