These probably aren’t the music rivalries most people make lists about. These bands don’t hate each other (at least to my knowledge), nor are they involved in some kind of heated, verbal controversy. What makes these acts rivals is the fact that their fantastic music is so similar (usually in sound and time period) that many feel it should be determined which band  is more influential or just better at what they do.  No, I can’t give you a winner of each battle, but I can say that it’s completely understandable to pick either of these bands as the victor of these debates, arguments that have been the topic of conversation for music snobs everywhere.

5. vs.

Iron Maiden versus Judas Priest

-Let’s face it, besides Black Sabbath and Metallica, these are probably the two greatest heavy metal bands of all time. The problem is, unlike Metallica and Sabbath, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden just sound so damn similar that it’s almost impossible to argue which band is better than the other. Both acts have wailing vocals, a distinct image, and furious twin guitars. What I love about this debate is how the two bands lyrical themes’ (The fantasy warfare of Maiden and the motor-powered leather of Priest) are so different, yet they both fit their seemingly identical music so well. It’s almost like the debate is which style of writing is more metal, the exciting world of make-believe or the stereotypical bad-ass biker lifestyle. Argumentative points have ranged from influence to commercial success, but no true answer has ever been found. My opinion is that it’s just two bands playing great music in their own unique way, so who the hell cares. Rock on.

4. vs. 

The Sex Pistols versus The Ramones

-It’s a question so many punk-enthusiasts have pondered for years on end: Who is the greatest punk band of all time? Both acts have had a significant influence on the world of rock and roll today, and they each have their own rabid fan base that will seriously die for the triumph of their respected band in this debate. Like rivalry #5, this argument also seems like it comes down to a clash of styles (ha, clash!) because the music is equally good. Which is more punk, the anarchist English rebelliousness of the Pistols or the misguided, down-and-out New York spirit embodied by The Ramones.  The Sex Pistols have a better album, but the Ramones were better live…the debate is endless. Again, I love both these acts, but sadly, agreeing to side with both bands simply just isn’t punk.

3. vs.

Billy Joel versus Elton John

-The epic battle of the piano men. Both have amazing voices, both are absolutely insane on the piano, and when it comes to musical storytelling, it doesn’t get any better than quite possibly two of the greatest musicians on the planet. It’s not even like one of them only does slow songs, or one of them only does love songs, it’s almost as if the two are unconsciously trying to one-up each other throughout their careers. Billy Joel writes his own songs, but Elton John is more of a rock star live, however, Billy Joel has that religious fan base, then again Elton John has more versatile music, and, and, and I have a headache. I love them both, and they love each other.  When they are both still playing twenty years from now, I guess we’ll have to wait until the long run to see who’s better. Yeah, like that will ever happen.

2. vs.

Led Zeppelin versus Black Sabbath

-It’s the legendary war of who deserves the credit for inventing heavy metal.  They both began recording roughly around the same time, and they each have their own share of incredibly heavy tunes. Yet, the question remains of who started it all. Was Metal born within the likes of Zeppelin songs like “Dazed and Confused” and “Communication Breakdown” or Sabbath tracks such as “Paranoid” or “Iron Man?” The world will never know. At first, Black Sabbath seems like the obvious answer due to their evil lyrics and re-invention of the power chord, but it’s hard to argue against Zeppelin’s thunderous percussion and super fast blues guitar techniques. The bottom line is, both bands are equally important to Metal, and I think that it was both styles’ joining together that truly created the most popular sub-genre of rock and roll.

1. vs.

The Beatles versus The Rolling Stones

-One of these two is the greatest rock and roll band of all time. It’s easy to say the fab four is the obvious answer, but I myself was surprised when I learned just how many people (mainly adults around the age of 50 and up) really believe that it’s the Stones that should be awarded this honor. Both bands revolutionized rock music in so many ways, and without either of them, music wouldn’t be anything like it is today. Whether it’s the musicianship, live shows, musical influence, versatility or songwriting, either act could be called the greatest of all time. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones epitomize everything that is rock and roll in so many ways, and once they got a hold of their future lifetime followers, the race for rock royalty has never ended. It seems like each year, we’re reminded in some new way why each band deserves their mark in history. They are our forefathers, and they deserve to be honored, and I think that no honor is more respectable than being recognized as an undying competitor for the greatest title a band would ever want.

Let’s face it, the idea of replacements in rock and roll bands has what many would call a negative connotation. Replacing a member of a band has often led to a bad result, proving that it’s not easy at all to recreate the chemistry the original members had. Yes, Sammy Hagar may very well have single-handedly destroyed Van Halen, and Paul Rodgers singing with Queen is like seeing the Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger, but this doesn’t mean all replacements are bad. That’s why I made this list, to remind people that despite these past monstrosities, a fair amount of replacement members have in fact had a positive effect on a band. These are five people that, in my opinion, either improved the act they joined or at least did justice to the musician they replaced.

5. Ron Wood-Already an experienced guitar player with Rod Stewart’s band, Ron Wood was a perfect replacement for Brian Jones when he died in 1969. He can truly hold his own as a blues player, and his short yet sweet fills brilliantly back up his legendary guitar counterpart when needed. Wood loves to party and perform on stage, just like a Rolling Stone should. From the start, he seemed totally comfortable with the original crew, as they did with him. Plus, anyone that can put up with what goes on between Mick and Keith after all these years has to have a good amount of dedication, which shows just how grateful Woody is to be part of quite possibly the greatest band of all time.

4. Phil Collen-Is it pop? Is it metal? It’s both, thanks to Def Leppard’s replacement of Pete Willis in the young and talented Phil Collen. His technical wizardry and extraordinary ability to write those catchy little verse riffs propelled Def Leppard beyond the endless array of 80’s metal bands and into superstardom. Collen brought the band backing vocals and stage presence, not to mention a nice image for their female fans to look at when they played their hot, sticky signature track. There’s no doubt that a large portion of Def Leppard’s long lasting fame is  due to their inclusion of this flashy guitarist they spotted in a nightclub in England.

3. Ronnie James Dio-People thought it wasn’t possible for Black Sabbath to get any more metal than they already were. Dio’s epic, earth shattering voice accompanied by the popularization of his trademark devil horns proved that even a band as incredible as Black Sabbath had room for improvement. Like the Godlike singer he replaced, Dio always delivers on stage, and the sounds on Sabbath’s later albums wouldn’t have worked better with any other vocalist. So different than Ozzy yet so alike, Dio’s undeniable talent left little if any Black Sabbath fan disappointed.

2. John Frusciante-If it wasn’t hard enough to categorize the Red Hot Chili Peppers, here comes John Frusciante to just make it more of a confusing process that is still debated today. I don’t know how they did it, but somehow the Chili Peppers found a guy that gave them everything they could ever want in a replacement for guitarist Hillel Slovak. He can play funk, metal, blues, punk, you name it, Frusciante can do it. His addition to the already successful band made people realize just how much of an all-around act these guys are, with expertise at each corner of the stage. There’s no other way to say it : John Frusciante is just the shit.

1. Brian Johnson- After all these years, I’m still asking myself the same question : How the hell does he sing like that? The great Bon Scott’s replacement must have vocal chords made of gravel. Brian Johnson’s explosive vocals and rock and roll spirit helped save AC/DC after their former singer’s death. In fact, one of the most talked about arguments in rock is whether Johnson is actually a better vocalist than Bon Scott, something rarely discussed when it comes to bands as classic as AC/DC. As unique as his voice is, it’s amazing just how well it fits into the music he sings along to. Like Scott, he gave the fans an explosive, ballsy voice, topped off with his own special touch. Throughout his long, successful career, Brian Johnson has continued to make his bandmates, fans, and predecessor, as proud as ever.

A great man once said, "All we need is just a little patience." Okay, maybe Axl Rose is only my idea of a "great man," but the point is that a decent amount of musicians tend to get hated on before they're even listened to, simply because of something they're associated with that doesn't fly well with some people. This could be their fan base, they way the band looks, or the unusual sound of the music. Due to these judgments, these artists aren't really given a chance, because it seems easy to be turned away by these stereotypes and labels. What this list shows is a group of acts that, in my opinion, don't get the credit they deserve, and that even though some of these stereotypes may be true, there's more to these acts than what people say about them.

5. Creed
-Stereotype: Cheesy, overtly-Christian based music with a bad singer.
-Why It's Incorrect: Yes, Scott Stapp does sound a little like Wierd Al making fun of Eddie Vedder, and some of the
lyrics are of biblical proportion, but with all these things put aside, Creed is epic, hard and heavy. Mark
Tremonti is one hell of a guitar player (he solos like
he's auditioning for a spot in Metallica), and when Stapp
gets intense, the grunge gods he pays tribute to would be
proud. Their softer stuff clearly isn't for everybody, but
when straight up metal is on their minds, the music is
good enough for even Scott Stapp to blend in well.

4. KISS
-Stereotype: A couple of clowns with bad makeup and spandex that only became famous because of how they looked.
-Why It's Incorrect: Why is it so hard for people to see past the makeup? With the exception of their business-obsessed bass player, Ace, Paul and Peter are
actually great musicians. When they were in their prime, KISS played solid rock, similar to the kick-ass style of AC/DC. Take the explosive quality of the music into account, and then it'll seem all so obvious why the fireworks, makeup, and alternate personalities are almost a rather necessary accessory.

3. U2
-Stereotype: "Holier than Thou" music that's only about how much of a saint Bono is and why we should save the
''starvin' children."
-Why It's Incorrect: Sure, a lot of U2's more popular songs do revolve around their lead singer's righteous causes, but it turns out that the pride of Ireland do in fact have a decent amount of good ol' rock and roll tracks. It doesn't matter what the guy's singing about because like it or not, he's got an amazing, ageless voice that any true music fan can respect. They show off,
they're cocky, and their concerts might be a bit much,
but really listen to the music and everything that came
after it...is it possible that U2 might just...deserve it
all?

2. Marilyn Manson
-Stereotype: Nothing but a sick pervert who whines about how much the world sucks and why you should kill yourself.
-Why It's Incorrect: Oh come on, the guy puts his genitals on just one dude's head, and now he's a bad guy? I don't
get it. Anyway, the point is, yes, it's angry and a little evil, but what some people call whining, others call social commentary. Believe it or not, the man is intelligent. Take a second to think about what he's saying, then think of the world we live in, and then maybe, just maybe you'll realize that Mr. Warner's beliefs aren't as impossible to relate to as you thought.

1. Phish
-Stereotype: Just one giant drawn out jam session that can only be tolerated unless the listener is under the
influence of some illegal substance.
-Why It's Incorrect: So it's okay when Jimmy Page or Joe Satriani solo for years on end, but when these guys do it,
suddenly it's bad music? Phish's jam sessions aren't too far off from Cream's style of simultaneous soloing, and throughout their long jams, I can guarantee at least one section will strike the fancy of anyone who appreciates jazz, rock, or even southern blues. Sure, it's better on drugs, but then again, isn't everything?

An old yet still-relevant criticism of so many bands, past and present is "every song sounds the same." This may be a sign that a particular artist could be what people call a "one trick pony," an act that can't be that talented because they're only good at one seemingly simple style of music. Now, if this is the case, why is it that when so many musicians test the waters of a different type of sound, the majority of the critical reactions are more bad than good? Most can recall how much flack Bob Dylan got when he picked up an electric guitar, or when Metallica traded melody for speed for a brief period. With these past receptions considered, it makes me wonder that maybe it's actually better to be one of those bands where "every song sounds the same." What this list shows is why being a "one trick pony" may be the right path to take, judging by success, quality of sound, and that band's status today.

1. AC/DC
-No one could have said it better than Ozzy Osbourne himself when he referred to AC/DC as "the no-bullshit band." This is because the music of these animals from down under can only be described as straight up rock and roll. And that's it. After all these years, AC/DC has
managed to completely stray away from anything, as Malcolm Young will attest to, they simply don't think they can do. Virtually every track they've put out features a solid, steady drum beat, distorted, blues based riffs, and lyrics that directly from the....well, you know where. Their lyrics, guitars and presentation have never gone soft. They know what their fans like, and, due to their esteemed status and their record breaking sales, AC/DC has proven to all of us that in the world of music, change may very well just be a bad idea.

2. The Ramones
-The Ramones are to punk as AC/DC is to hard rock. The majority of their songs revolve around textbook punk rock song structure: four to five power chords, upbeat drumming, and no solos. They never went slow, bluesy, or clean, throughout their illustrious career. Once they started partying, (and as we've seen, it's unfortunately
taken its toll on the band) they never stopped. A Ramones
show was just a fun ride all the way through, never
turning off the distortion switch, slowing down the drums,
or toning down those vocals, whatever the hell he was
singing about.

3. Slayer
-Ask any hardcore thrash fan who the most important band of that genre is, and odds are, Slayer should be the most
popular answer. This is because, like the other artists in this list, Slayer has stuck to their Satanic guns since
they first came onto the scene and changed metal forever. Their songs have stayed short, fast, heavy, and more evil
than the dark lord himself. By creating consistently good
albums that only contain songs of this nature, Slayer
proved that thrash was a legitimate musical genre, and
that the way to gain the most dedicated fan base was to
stay true to one's roots. It's safe to say that if Slayer
ever tried their luck at a different genre, they wouldn't
have earned their one-of-a-kind fans who carve their name
into their skin and enjoy getting the hell beaten out of themselves at their concerts.

4. ZZ Top
-For almost forty years (I know, right?) ZZ Top have shown the world that the blues are alive and well. How? By shoving it in our faces, song after song, album after album. They've experimented with synthesizers and
different guitar effects, but the majority of these Texans' recordings revolve around southern based riffs,
ballsy lyrics, and of course, Billy Gibbons' signature,
awe-inspiring guitar solos. It's all blues, all the time,
and ZZ Top has never shed their masculine, bad-ass
southern style. Dusty and Billy have even kept those
classic beards that they've had since God knows how long.
These guys have the blues down-pat, and, as they say,
if you've got it, flaunt it.

5. The Beach Boys
-One of the greatest bands of all time, it's safe to say that the legendary Beach Boys owe a great deal of their
success to the fact that once they perfected their trademark, California style, they never looked back. Surf-rock guitar riffs and dreamy, fun lyrics accompanied by those glorious harmonies turned the Beach Boys into worldwide icons. The Beach Boys vast commercial success and undeniable influence on modern music gave them full ownership of their genre, one that has been imitated by countless acts from the same region. Yes,it might all sound the same, but once they had the entire world dancing and swaying, why change at all? Whether it was the vocals, guitars, or toasty-warm lyrics, every Beach Boys song in some way reminded their fans why they were impossible to hate.