100 Greatest Rock Artists (work-in-progress)
Submitted by pierrotlefou on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 02:37
Tags:
- The Beatles
- Bob Dylan
- The Velvet Underground
- The Rolling Stones
- Tim Buckley
- Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band
- Frank Zappa/The Mothers of Invention
- Brian Eno
- The Who
- The Jimi Hendrix Experience
- .
- .
- .
- The Band
- The Beach Boys
- Chuck Berry
- Big Star
- David Bowie
- Buddy Holly and the Crickets
- The Byrds
- The Doors
- Can
- The Clash
- Sam Cooke
- The Doors
- Nick Drake
- Faust
- Gong
- Jefferson Airplane
- King Crimson
- The Kinks
- Led Zeppelin
- Love
- The MC5
- Van Morrison
- The New York Dolls
- Nico
- Laura Nyro
- Van Dyke Parks
- Pere Ubu
- Pink Floyd
- Elvis Presley
- Les Rallizes Denudes
- The Red Krayola
- Otis Redding
- The Sex Pistols
- Simon & Garfunkel
- The Soft Machine
- The Stooges
- T. Rex
- The Talking Heads
- Television
- Stevie Wonder
- The Yardbirds
- Yes
- Neil Young
WITHOUT THE BEATLES NOTHING THAT CAME AFTER WOULD EXIST. Phil Spector would still be trotting out wall-of-sound girl groups, the Beach Boys would still be in love with their cars and surfing, The Who would still be doing James Brown covers, and the Rolling Stones would still be an obscure R&B wanna-be.
Elvis Presley is not really a rock artist. More like Rock and Roll. Throw away the Captain Beefhart and the Velvet Underground.
What do you not like about Captain Beefheart and The Velvet Underground?
Let's see sub par vocals actually awful vocals, substandard playing, would be the Velvet Underground. Awful vocals, maybe one classic album and not very listenable music that would be Captain Beefhart.
It's not about the technique. It's about the emotion. And that's one thing you seemed to of forgotten there friend.
If technique is the most important factor in music, tell me why bands such as Yes arn't heralded as the greatest band of all time?
Well not to everyone. Some people want to hear music they can dance or listen. The Velvet Underground are a decent band musically. They are not for everyone.
I like music I can dance to. Hence, I like dance music. And The Velvet Underground is far more listenable to me than The Beatles.
And you answered the whole of The Beatles vs Scaruffi debate in one sentance. "They are not for everyone." Neither are The Beatles.
I did not bring the Beatles into this. The Velvet Underground are a decent band musically with a lot of influence on certain genres. The Beatles influenced thousands of musicians and influenced how Rock musicians record music. As for listenability the Beatles were far more listenable. What are you comparing Velvet Underground to Revolver or Abbey Road in terms of listenability? I know most people would rather listen to Abbey Road.
Piero Scaruffi his opinions are statements that simply fail with any real knowledge of musicology (www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml). Basically, it comes down to this - if you want to make the claim that the Beatles were a musically insignificant band, you need to claim that you know more about music theory than Leonard Bernstein and Aaron Copland. These guys weren't pumping the Dave Clark Five or the Rolling Stones. And that's a tall task given that Scaruffi seems to lack any serious training in music (as, it seems, in most areas he writes about.
"I did not bring the Beatles into this."
But the original argument started over yet another Beatles argument so...
"As for listenability the Beatles were far more listenable. What are you comparing Velvet Underground to Revolver or Abbey Road in terms of listenability? I know most people would rather listen to Abbey Road."
That's a matter of opinion, The VU & Nico I find much more listenable than Abbey Road. And Revolver I can't stand, it makes me cringe everytime I hear it.
"Piero Scaruffi his opinions are statements that simply fail with any real knowledge of musicology "
Wow.
"Basically, it comes down to this - if you want to make the claim that the Beatles were a musically insignificant band, you need to claim that you know more about music theory than Leonard Bernstein and Aaron Copland."
I don't claim that. They were one of the most signicificant bands of the 60s. However it doesn't mean they were amazing IMHO. It just means that they represented a culture of people and made good pop music with the exception of a few good experimental songs.
My opinion on Piero Scaruffi is not based on whether he likes the Beatles or if they were the greatest rock group. I don't mind if someone dislikes the Beatles I don't care.
Piero Scaruffi his opinions are statements that simply fail with any real knowledge of musicology”.
What I am saying someone like Piero Scaruffi if he wants to make the claim that the Beatles were a musically insignificant band, you need to claim that you know more about music theory than Leonard Bernstein and Aaron Copland or Bob Dylan. . These guys weren't pumping the Dave Clark Five or the Rolling Stones. And that's a tall task given that Scaruffi seems to lack any serious training in music (as, it seems, in most areas he writes about
Experimental could mean anything from “Think for Yourself" Paul McCartney applied a fuzzbox on his bass creating a fuzz bass effect. In a departure of all precedent were also having two bass lines on the track one fuzz and the other regular. Or the sonic experiments like psychedelic free form tape collages of "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "I am the Walrus". Both of them Art Rock Songs. Or how the Beatles and their recording engineers boosted their bass sound by recording a microphone as a loudspeaker on "Rain and "Paperback Writer".
What irks me rock music is a music genre that uses techniques and music forms that already was established in the past. Unlike the Beatles the Yardbirds and the Velvet Underground did not invent one recording technique. The Yardbirds were very innovative. Like the Beatles they mixed and matched like everyone else and created something new.
"Experimental could mean anything from “Think for Yourself" Paul McCartney applied a fuzzbox on his bass creating a fuzz bass effect. In a departure of all precedent were also having two bass lines on the track one fuzz and the other regular. Or the sonic experiments like psychedelic free form tape collages of "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "I am the Walrus". Both of them Art Rock Songs. Or how the Beatles and their recording engineers boosted their bass sound by recording a microphone as a loudspeaker on "Rain and "Paperback Writer""
By Experimental I mean songs like "Revolution 9" and "A Day in the Life". They were experimental technicaly and musically.
"What irks me rock music is a music genre that uses techniques and music forms that already was established in the past. Unlike the Beatles the Yardbirds and the Velvet Underground did not invent one recording technique. The Yardbirds were very innovative. Like the Beatles they mixed and matched like everyone else and created something new."
And saying The Velvet Underground did not invent one recording techniuque is true, but they only inspired alternative rock, punk and most of rock music for the next 40 years, but yes it is true that they didn't record backward drums which I shall give credit to The Beatles for.
The difference with The Beatles was the amount of variation they produced and it is very hard to label them as pop/rock/blues/folk etc purely because of that diversity.
What do the Beatles sound like ?.....Love Me Do?, Revolution ?, While My Guitar....?, Revolution 9 ?, She Loves You ?, Lucy ?, Helter Skelter ?, Within You and Without You ?, I Want You ?, Something ? This boy? A Day in the Life? Tomorrow Never Knows? Eleanor
Rigby? Come together? ....I could go on all day. What do the above have in common musically? ----nothing.
Amongst many of their pop styled songs were experimental music far away removed from what normal pop and blues rock musicians were doing 1965-1967.
Tracks like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberry Fields Forever' pushed the limits of four track technology. Songs like "Love You To"; "Blue Jay Way" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" goes away from the Western norm of, Instrumentation, melody, rhythm, formal structure and recording techniques.
As much as the Velvet Underground was experimental they still did not push the limits of recording technology like some of the Beatles songs did. Those are the facts. I don’t even know if they ever recorded a track as far away what normal rock musicians were doing such as “Within You Without You” or “Revolution #9
To say the Velvet Underground influenced most of rock music the last 40 years is laughable. I guess what the Beatle Bashers here mean by musically great and original is artists who can't sing, have no tunes to their depressing words and am popular amongst junkies...
Now that is original...lol
There are whole genres where the Velvet Underground has no influence including Pop Music, Progressive Rock, Heavy Metal, Folk Rock and many more. Any band who writes and plays their music in Rock music owe more to the Beatles than the Velvet Underground.
"Tracks like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberry Fields Forever' pushed the limits of four track technology. Songs like "Love You To"; "Blue Jay Way" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" goes away from the Western norm of, Instrumentation, melody, rhythm, formal structure and recording techniques.
And tracks like Venus in Furs, European Son, Waiting for my Man weren't experimental and far removed from popular music at the time...
"As much as the Velvet Underground was experimental they still did not push the limits of recording technology like some of the Beatles songs did. Those are the facts. I don’t even know if they ever recorded a track as far away what normal rock musicians were doing such as “Within You Without You” or “Revolution #9","
Heroin, Venus in Furs, European Son, Sister Ray etc....
"To say the Velvet Underground influenced most of rock music the last 40 years is laughable. I guess what the Beatle Bashers here mean by musically great and original is artists who can't sing, have no tunes to their depressing words and am popular amongst junkies..."
Well The Velvet Underground is widely known as one of the most influential bands of rock music. Even most Beatles lovers accept that. I could find proof if you want but even if I did you wouldn't accept it so I'm not going to waste my time. I forgot to mention, The VU & Nico is widely accepted as one of the greatest rock albums of all time. Just look at most populist lits (which co-incidentally love The Beatles).
"There are whole genres where the Velvet Underground has no influence including Pop Music, Progressive Rock, Heavy Metal, Folk Rock and many more. Any band who writes and plays their music in Rock music owe more to the Beatles than the Velvet Underground."
They definately had an influence on Heavy Metal, as they were the main inspirations of Punk and Punk influenced Heavy Metal. Also, if your going to list what genres The VU had no influence on, I could suggest quite a few genres which The Beatles had no or negligible influence on.
Really anyone who thinks the Beatles were not doing new things in Rock Music and Pop Music are either brain dead or they have some blind worship to Scaruffi. The same goes with Beatles fans knocking the Velvet Underground and their lack of influence when it's not true.
Tracks like "Tomorrow Never Knows" "A Day in the Life” and "Strawberry Fields Forever' pushed the limits of four track technology. Name one Velvet Underground song that does? That's not what they were about and there is nothing wrong with that. Dylan was the same way.
""Love You To" the first conscious attempt in pop to emulate a non-Western form of music in structure and instrumentation by Peter Lavezzoli. I can’t really say that for the Velvet Underground songs. Take away the lyrical content on “Waiting for the Man” and musically it’s very conventional. Tracks like "Venus in Furs" and "European Son" is experimental but they don't fit that category. I don't think they are that innovative to be honest.
As for influence it's hard to beat the Beatles when they have influenced songwriting, recording technology in rock music and pop music, even to some of the instruments musicians play remember a whole generation were influenced George Harrison to purchase the electric 12 string guitar, Indian instruments, and multiple genres. Their influence extends into Pop Music maybe just as much as Rock Music.
Jesus christ you guys are beating a dead horse. I suggest this discussion be moved to the following:
http://listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.34331/Music
This is one weird site. It seems many of the lists that are slanted towards Scarziods lists here are worded the same and have the same artists. On Rate Your Music with over 9,000 ratings Revolver is ranked 1st all time. That's a consensus opinion. Two minor points that can't be argued. The Beatles definitely were experimenting with ancient musical forms with pop music and rock music forms. Secondly Meindrag get over it the Beatles were pushing the limits of studio technology in Popular Music.
Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys said that "Strawberry Fields Forever" was partially responsible for the shelving of his group's legendary unfinished album, SMiLE. Wilson first heard the song on his car radio whilst driving, and was so affected that he had to stop and listen to it all the way through. He then remarked to his passenger that The Beatles had already reached the sound The Beach Boys had wanted to achieve. Paul Revere & the Raiders were among the most successful US groups during 1966 and 1967, having their own Dick Clark-produced television show, Where the Action Is. Mark Lindsay (singer/saxophonist) heard the song on the radio, bought it, and then listened to it at home with his producer at the time, Terry Melcher. When the song ended Lindsay said, "Now what the fuck are we gonna do?" later saying, "With that single, The Beatles raised the ante as to what a pop record should be"
No many how many random facts you spout off about how many people love the Beatles, the Scaruffists just clearly like a different style of music. The Scaruffi lists do tend to be pretty repetitive, but just because more people love Revolver doesn't make it a universal truth. Why can't you just make your own lists about your own tastes and leave the Scaruffists to do the same? Seriously. I am seriously asking why you Beatles nuts can't just drop this.
The problem is not disliking the Beatles. It's the lack of knowledge of music. Some Scarziod said "Strawberry Fields Forever" was a simple pop song. It's very complicated with innovative compositional and recording techniques It's that kind of crap that makes a musician like me wonder what the hell are you talking about. If you say things like that then back it up or shut the hell up.
"Strawberry Fields Forever" is a very complex, innovative pop song compared to the vast majority of pop songs. But it's a simple pop song compared to the sort of music Scaruffists like. It's always been just a matter of perspective.
Oh man not another one. For 1966 it's basically almost progressive rock. "Strawberry Fields Forever" is at least Proto-Prog. With its use of mellotron, Indian scales and two separate versions of one song into one. Strawberry Fields Forever" uses diminished chords that are common with jazz music. It changes time signatures often 4/4, 6/8, 3/4, 2/4. Hardly simple stuff.. Rock musicians other than Zappa were basically using 4/4 time signature and hardly any were using the chord progression that they were using.
Other examples
"Happiness Is a Warm Gun" for example include a Balkan rhythm and a polyrhythm in different sections. Were they influenced by jazz?
"A Day in the Life", "I am the Walrus", "Within You, Without You", Strawberry Fields"... They were able to draw from diverse sources, like Indian classical music "Within You" uses a raga-like form that contains major and minor thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and Dorian modalities. Again not really what so-called bands of 1967 were doing.
I know. I know. I know. I know.
But what does that add up to? Don't you think even in spite of all these things it's a little less unique than, say, Twin Infinitives?
If there's one thing I've learned about Scaruffists, it's that they like music that sounds like nothing else. It's a question of scale. "Strawberry Fields Forever" does sound different than most "so called bands of 1967." But it still sounds a lot more similar to those bands than Faust's "Miss Fortune" does.
This is barely even an opinion. It's a fact.
Please try to grasp this concept and stop quoting lists of cool facts about the Beatles all over the place. You're making me feel embarrassed to be a Beatles fan.
I have listened to enough Rock Music to say I only like the mid to late Beatles period, Jimi Hendrix, some Progressive Rock and that's about it. Frank Zappa might be complex and sounds like no one else maybe because no one really wants to maybe. I would say more sound like the Beatles and Hendrix because they have been basically been ripped off the last 40 years. Sounding unique does not mean innovation which the Beatles and Hendrix have in spades. Sounding unique does not mean complex music or good music at all. The Beatles created tape loops then mixed it live to create that innovative Psychedelic soundscape that you hear on Revolver over. The production on that song was very complex something Scaruffites should get their asses between their tales and acknowledge. The bass and drum sound on that album has been ripped off from everyone from the Jam to Beck. Now everyone in Hip-Hop and dance style music uses those styles but they have the benefit of computers to do that.
The reason why people call albums like Revolver, Sgt Pepper as proto-progressive because they were one of the first Rock bands to play and use complicated recording procedures. Any idiot could sound unique go listen to "Wild Honey Pie" is about as atonal as any Frank Zappa song is. I like unique music the Beatles catalog is filled with unique music that was listenable honestly one of their main influences on musicians like it or not. Why am I bothering? LOL
"Why am I bothering?"
I don't know, man. I really don't know.
That's great to hear. On a more interesting topic, which Hendrix track/album is your favourite? Also, I have a sneaking suspicion you like jazz music ;) Which artists are your favourite?
"Zappa might be complex and sounds like no one else maybe because no one really wants to maybe"
Huh? I'm sure any musician would kill for his talent. I'm pretty sure he's been praised by every musician (yes!) including (oh no!) Paul McCartney
Smell the coffee there are thousands of musicians who are not influenced by Zappa. Zappa is great but there are literally thousands of bands and musicians who are influenced by the Beatles. www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles
...and thousands not influenced by the Beatles. Whats your point?
Listen, it's statements like this: "WITHOUT THE BEATLES NOTHING THAT CAME AFTER WOULD EXIST." that set people in a frenzy. That's profoundly false. The Beatles were the right band in the right place at the right time. Certainly influential, but I could argue that Kraftwerk were evne more influential. I just don't understand why you guys (who I'm beginning to suspect are all the same person) handedly dismiss innovation while praising how innovative the Beatles were.
I have been wondering the same thing about people here. I never have seen a place where all the people have the same lists and speak the same language. I don't dismiss the innovations of others. I am like other people defending the Beatles and that's it really. The Beatles have millions of fans so they are going to be many who are going to defend them. Geez.....
Former Kraftwerk Karl Bortos said this "Sampling has been around since the Beatles they did it all. There's really no difference between using tapes and digital machinery"
It's all here "Tomorrow Never Knows” which displays the most radical use of tape manipulation. It features Lennon singing over a planned cacophony created by layering tape loops, sped up tape loops, backward tapes over metronomic drum and bass pattern. This is just as important as Kraftwerk.
I know it pisses people off who dislike the Beatles. This is insane the Beatles have influenced thousands of musicians. No one is going around trying to the next Zappa or Beefhart. I said what I have to say. I am going to do everyone a favor and make a thread on the Beatles impact on music. The Beatles fans and Scaruffites could go argue on something that most musicians would tell you the Beatles are the most influential rock act of the last 45 years. Ok
Back to the original topic
Best = The music that I believe has earned the most acclaim, objectively speaking, considering musicianship, creativity, historical context, influence, originality
1- The Beatles
2- Jimi Hendrix
3- King Crimson
4- The Yardbirds
5- The Who
6- The Rolling Stones
7- Metallica
8- Black Sabbath
9- The Byrds
10- Pink Floyd
Many people split "Rock&Roll and Rock Music. Elvis and Buddy Holly are not rock music. On that criteria many must go. Some of the artists on your list only influence fringe artists or are historically will be forgotten in the near future.
Jazz99, I'm serious. Why can't you just let pierrotlefou have his list and opinions without bothering him with these absurd quibbles like saying that Elvis isn't rock music? Can't you accept that someone else can prefer praising fringe artists to praising Metallica? Can't you just make your own list of great artists instead of arguing with his? It's just ridiculous.
Look I gave my opinion. That's all why are you guys so sensitive? It's just music. He is entitled to his opinion and so am I. I am stating my opinion based on my criteria ok. I stated my opinion and will leave this thread.
Thank you. Around here we are subjected to a constant barrage of Scaruffists claiming the Beatles are overrated and Beatles fans who want to make endless arguments that will never go anywhere. It's really repetitive, it's been going on for years, and everyone just says the same things. I'm sick of it.
I have no problem with Jazz99 stating his opinions. If he thinks a lot of the artists on here are fringe artists and irrelevant, that's fine with me. All opinions are appreciated. I just don't want to host yet another inane debate regarding the artistic merits of The Beatles. There are plenty of other artists on this list that are worthy of such vigorous discussion (such as Tim Buckley or Big Star).
As Menindrag mentioned earlier, my list is about emotion. Thus I find both The Beatles and The Velvet Underground to be emotionally genuine, and I don't see why somebody has to be for one band and against the other. Despite some stylistic and perhaps thematic differences, they both made interesting music that represented the zeitgeist of the '60's and had an immeasurable impact on the evolution of rock music.
Why no Led Zeppelin? Was it the blues hijacking of their earlier work? Big Star is a good choice on your list. No Elliot Smith?
I didn't realize I left Led Zeppelin off. Thanks for noticing. As far as Elliot Smith goes, I'm not familiar enough with his music to include him yet.
No Led Zep?
The Beatles might mean nothing to Frank Zappa, Red Krayola or Captain Beefhart but they had the songs and the songwriting. Don't be fooled the Velvet Underground especially John Cale copped some the Beatles ideas.
The Beatles - pretty self-explanatory. they changed the face of rock 'n roll (and other forms of popular music) by introducing new techniques, as well as unorthodox techniques from rather obscure sources.
John cage - overall pioneer in avant-garde, improvised, composed, and electronic music, as well as being cause for an entirely new definition of "music" itself.
The Kinks influence on Hard rock, and of course Chuck Berry the father of rock guitar and songwriting.
the beatles are on the list what's the problem here..
As one of both Zappa's and Captain Beefheart's greatest fans, I'm fine with their not being included in the "100 greatest rock artists" list. In my "iTunes" library, I classify music as follows: 1) Alternative Rock: Devo, Talking Heads, B-52s, Bowie, etc. 2) Blues: Big Joe Turner, Howlin' Wolf and Little Richard, etc. 3) Experimental Rock: Captain Beefheart, etc. 4) Rock 'n' Roll: Elvis, Beach Boys, Chubby Checkers and other rockers PRE-BEATLES. 5) Rock: Beatles, Hendrix, Clapton, and all others currently classified as "psychedellic" "classic rock" and "metal." 6) Zappa: yes- Zappa is so different and unclassifiable in my mind, I felt he deserved a category all by himself. He contains:modern classical, jazz, doo wop, blues, rock, and experimental rock. Far too complex to be included with the Beatles.
Not to disparage the Beatles, of course! I agree with the first poster in this thread that the Beatles are the most important of all rock groups. My point is that the Beatles ARE rock... but Zappa, although he "dabbled" in rock, made nowhere near the dent in mainstream rock that the Beatles made. Zappa (and Beefheart, too) made their contributions to MUSIC ITSELF, not to any particular genre.