Bad Company vs Survivor

I am more partial to Survivor but Bad Company is pretty awesome too - however I like the rockin vibe of Survivor's songs better plus they were featured in two of my all time favorite movies!

This isn't even close for me. Bad Company's music doesn't sound dated to my ears. Can't say the same for Survivor.

I don't think either bands sound dated. However Survivor's late 80s material like When Seconds Count can sound a bit dated at times. Just depends on my mood. I normally prefer their first 3 - 4 albums. I've been listening to the self-titled debut a bit lately and it rocks out real hard.

I respect the work of Bad Company quite a bit, but I'm a big fan of Survivor. This isn't even close for me. I liked the Dave Bickler years, and I loved the Jimi Jamison years. If I had to pick a rock band's songs as a video montage for my adolescent years, it would be Survivor. It's feel good music...

For me there are two defining differences.

I don't think Bad Company ever used keyboards (especially synths) as much as Survivor eventually did (thus making them sound dated IMO) and more importantly, Bad Company had Paul Rodgers, one of the greatest rock vocalists in history as far as I'm concerned.

tohostudios wrote:

For me there are two defining differences.

I don't think Bad Company ever used keyboards (especially synths) as much as Survivor eventually did (thus making them sound dated IMO) and more importantly, Bad Company had Paul Rodgers, one of the greatest rock vocalists in history as far as I'm concerned.

+ 1000

Bad Company is an iconic band and still sounds great to me, and even if they did sound dated, they would still have the advantage because they have the legendary Paul Rodgers on vocals.

I love both bands, but you're comparing blues rock with pop rock. The scales are unevenly tipped in Bad Company's direction.

I am with Bad Company.

Bad Company, I mean come on, they had Mick Ralphs. However, this isn't a fair comparison either.

This isn't strictly about comparing the bands. It's more about what you like better.

Survivor had enough good songs for a greatest hits, Bad Company has great albums.

Isn't survivor the band that plays eye of the tiger?

I like some Survivor tunes but Bad Company just ROCKS!!!!!

I like SURVIVOR more. I like some BAD COMPANY songs from the 70s and some of their 80s AOR, MELODIC HARD ROCK albums but i like SURVIVOR more, and COBRA.

Growing up in the 70's and coming of age as a musician in the 70's, my choice is Bad Co.

I only know one tune by Survivor, gues which one

I dont really see the comparison. Survivor was popular from about '82-'85ish. Bad Company (the 80's band) didnt put out a debut until '86 and their peak was '88-'92 or '93.

Survivor has a couple good songs but I'll take '88-'93 Bad co. anyday.

I'm not even talkin' about Bad Company of the 70's, they were frikkin' legends and Paul Rodgers is one of the greatest rock vocalists ever. Survivor couldn't even carry their equipment as far as I'm concerned.

I don't get the comparison either. Survivor has some cool songs but they can't compare to the legendary material of Bad Company.

You guys obviously didn't read the question: there's no comparison , there's no seriousness about this ... it's just a simple question: WHICH ONE DO YOU LIKE BEST...

I like Bad Company's debut album...and nothing by Survivor.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

You guys obviously didn't read the question: there's no comparison , there's no seriousness about this ... it's just a simple question: WHICH ONE DO YOU LIKE BEST...

OK fine Bad Company, I hate Survivor

Survivor.

Screw you guys.

Crap. Why did I vote for Survivor? Can I get a do-over?

Bad Company by a mile, the early material is great, the late 80's - early 90's stuff is also really good. A band I was in in college used to cover Holy Water and got great crowd response.

Bad Company...I can't deny...

Bad Company by a long shot.They have a much better catalog in my opinion.Survivor only has a few songs I like.