# Greatest rock and roll band?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BBC reports on the greatest rock and roll bands of all time. Not surprisingly, the Beatles place first. But:

"Surprisingly, the finding also illustrates that the Beatles' popularity among Republicans has plunged over the past decade as a result of the current political climate. Opinions of the group have seen quite the adjustment across all political affiliations.

"In 2018, Democrats reported an increase in favorability - 54 percent like the Beatles "a lot," compared to 51 percent in 2009. The trend continues with registered independents as 53 percent like them a lot in 2018 compared to 49 percent in 2009. The large change in favorability came from conservatives as Republicans reported that just 40 percent like the Beatles a lot now compared to 50 percent in 2009, resulting in a 10-point drop."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/the-greatest-rock-and-roll-bands-of-all-time-are


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

That is a _really_ poor list, I mean KISS and Bon Jovi making it and no Pink Floyd or The Doors? Who the hell were these people they were polling?! :lol:

My feeling is Zeppelin and The Beatles should always be 1 and 2 I don't care about the order. The Stones as usual are ranked too high.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't know the specifics here, but Monmouth University is well-respected in the polling community. I believe this poll was of US people only.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I thought the Beatles were a pop band, this is the first time I have heard them called a rock band


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> "Surprisingly, the finding also illustrates that the Beatles' popularity among Republicans has plunged over the past decade as a result of the current political climate. Opinions of the group have seen quite the adjustment across all political affiliations.


Republicans love money. The Beatles made hundreds of millions. What's the problem? Are they Kiss fans now?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Beatles were the Mozart of their time. Mozart composed pop classical, Beatles composed pop rock and roll. Since I am not a big fan of pop, I am not the greatest fan of either Mozart or Beatles.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

rock and roll is different from rock. The Beatles (and many other bands in that list) can't be considered rock and roll.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

starthrower said:


> Republicans love money. The Beatles made hundreds of millions. What's the problem? Are they Kiss fans now?


America is currently divided in a "cold" civil war. The battle lines are deep. 50 years ago you could have a "liberal" Republican like Nelson Rockefeller or a "conservative" Democrat like Scoop Jackson. Not anymore! And *make no mistake*, the conservatives always disliked the Beatles. We could go into a lot of examples why, but let's not. So this poll says more about the division in America than it does about changing views of the Beatles.

The Beatles were and still are a thorn in the conservative side. Even something as "innocent" looking as the scene in _A Hard Days Night_ where they encounter the stuffy Englishman in the train compartment. There is more going on below the surface of that radical scene when you consider where the boys are from. It was like giving the other side the middle finger.

Pop, rock, I won't quibble with terms, they were simply the greatest band. Adding in the contributions of George Martin, no other band has created a more encompassing gestalt than The Beatles.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Room2201974 said:


> America is currently divided in a "cold" civil war. The battle lines are deep. 50 years ago you could have a "liberal" Republican like Nelson Rockefeller or a "conservative" Democrat like Scoop Jackson. Not anymore! And *make no mistake*, the conservatives always disliked the Beatles. We could go into a lot of examples why, but let's not. So this poll says more about the division in America than it does about changing views of the Beatles. The Beatles were and still are a thorn in the conservative side. Even something as "innocent" looking as the scene in _A Hard Days Night_ where they encounter the stuffy Englishman in the train compartment. There is more going on below the surface of that radical scene when you consider where the boys are from. It was like giving the other side the middle finger. Pop, rock, I won't quibble with terms, . they were simply the greatest band. Adding in the contributions of George Martin, no other band has created a more encompassing gestalt than The Beatles.


my mental image of a typical conservative is a gun loving hypocritical bigotted ******* who lives in constant contradictions (only God can create life, so abortions are evil VS death penalty against underage and mentally ill etc, now suddently it is possible to take lives). These people must have hated Beatles for sure. Beatles were half-hippies, Lennon took a lot of LSD and composed music about it and then sung about "free love". If Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is not about an LSD trip, then I do not know about what. On the other hand the leftist SJWs with their political correctness, insane feminism and similar excesses is not much more sympathetic either. That is the problem of having just 2 political parties.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^The only thing worse than having two political parties is having more than two political parties. Or one political party.

The Beatles' great crime was fostering the man who would compose and perform _Imagine_.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^The only thing worse than having two political parties is having more than two political parties. Or one political party.


an enlightened monarchy with me as the Supreme Leader would be ideal


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

With so many other options available no hair metal should have been included on principle apart from the one group who inadvertently spawned it all - Van Halen.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Jacck said:


> my mental image of a typical conservative is a gun loving hypocritical bigotted ******* who lives in constant contradictions (only God can create life, so abortions are evil VS death penalty against underage and mentally ill etc, now suddently it is possible to take lives). These people must have hated Beatles for sure. Beatles were half-hippies, Lennon took a lot of LSD and composed music about it and then sung about "free love". If Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is not about an LSD trip, then I do not know about what. On the other hand the leftist SJWs with their political correctness, insane feminism and similar excesses is not much more sympathetic either. That is the problem of having just 2 political parties.


Your mental image has been formed by a basic misunderstanding influenced by the crass, oversimplifications perpetrated by our money driven media. Am I seriously to believe the "average" conservative person is a gun toting bigot? We really ought to stop using terms like liberal and conservative because they've lost their meaning. Am I to believe today's republican party is conservative? This is laughable. Just like the stupid rock poll. "Greatest of all time"? Rock n roll has been around for only 60 years. And in half that amount of time the political climate in America has been reduced to a mindless reality show you can't turn off. I think I'll put on a Beatles album and pour a cup of coffee.


----------



## Vronsky (Jan 5, 2015)

I agree with tdc's comment, it's weird not to include Pink Floyd and The Doors on lists like this one.

And I have one off topic question, because Journey is mentioned on the list, I'm interested, did anyone listened Journey's early, prog-rock/jazz-fusion albums? I've read many positive opinions about them...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

My opinion is that the early Journey stuff is not that great. I mean, compared to their contemporaries those albums are mediocre. The better bands beat them to the punch by at least five years. The smartest move they ever made was to hire Steve Perry. The rest of the band consisted of very capable musicians, but they weren't exactly inspired songwriters or attention grabbing personalities. I've long admired Greg Rolie and Steve Smith for their musical talent, but I never bought Journey records. I was a fan of Steve's jazz rock band, Vital Information. Coincidentally, it featured another former Santana keyboard player, Tom Coster.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Sorry, too much coffee this AM.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Band that I would add to the list: Scorpions

Otherwise, it is very understandable, and I like a lot of the choices.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Your mental image has been formed by a basic misunderstanding influenced by the crass, oversimplifications perpetrated by our money driven media. Am I seriously to believe the "average" conservative person is a gun toting bigot? We really ought to stop using terms like liberal and conservative because they've lost their meaning. Am I to believe today's republican party is conservative? This is laughable. Just like the stupid rock poll. "Greatest of all time"? Rock n roll has been around for only 60 years. And in half that amount of time the political climate in America has been reduced to a mindless reality show you can't turn off. I think I'll put on a Beatles album and pour a cup of coffee.


I still cannot fathom how a sane person could have voted for Trump. We have the same problem here, a certain fraction of nation has been brainwashed by russian alternative media and voted for Zeman (who has been called - not without some justification - the Czech Trump)
https://euobserver.com/opinion/133789
mostly old, stupid and poor people, who have been scared by "muslim immigration" and anti-EU propaganda (disseminated by the Russian trolls over social media and alternative webs) helped to elect him. The same happened with Trump. He would not have won without the Russian support and hate dissemination. He is a spoilt rich brat with a narcissistic personality disorder who inherited a lot of money from his father. He has no real talent and is absolutely clueless about everything.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

*My favorites: Guns n Roses, Nirvana, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Georgia Satellites, Neil Young with Crazy Horse, Lou Reed with The Velvet Underground and other "bands". *

The Beatles are good - in fact the Beatles are excellent but I tend to think of them first and foremost as a pop group not really a rock n roll band - Although they played hard hitting rock n roll too sometimes.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^The only thing worse than having two political parties is having more than two political parties. Or one political party.


We have been using MMP (mixed member proportional) for years, everyone has two votes one for the Party and one for a MP. We turned to it when one party got more votes than the other and lost the election because they won less seats. It still needs a bit of tweeking but works much better than "first past the post.

https://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Dan Ante said:


> We have been using MMP (mixed member proportional) for years, everyone has two votes one for the Party and one for a MP. We turned to it when one party got more votes than the other and lost the election because they won less seats. It still needs a bit of tweeking but works much better than "first past the post.
> 
> https://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system


An interesting system. How many "serious" parties contest meaningfully for political control in NZ? Italy for decades has been often paralyzed by a multiplicity of parties. And the political mix in Israel is often chaotic, leading to small hard-core parties exerting outsized power over fragile coalition governments.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

How's Elvis a rock 'n' roll band? Does that include his sessions musicians? The list appears to be more an all-time favourite bands list, rather than greatest. I would put Bo Diddley at the top.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> An interesting system. How many "serious" parties contest meaningfully for political control in NZ? Italy for decades has been often paralyzed by a multiplicity of parties. And the political mix in Israel is often chaotic, leading to small hard-core parties exerting outsized power over fragile coalition governments.


We have Labour and National which are the main parties, then Act, New Zealand First and of course the Greenies are the miner parties, the politicians don't like it so it must be a better system, it has its faults but ensures all people have a say.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Dan Ante said:


> We have been using MMP (mixed member proportional) for years, everyone has two votes one for the Party and one for a MP. We turned to it when one party got more votes than the other and lost the election because they won less seats. It still needs a bit of tweeking but works much better than "first past the post.
> 
> https://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system


We here in British Columbia are currently voting for either this system or keeping the old first past the post system. If we change, it'll be the provincial government only, not federal. We are mailing in our ballot right now. The result will be available at the end of the month. We've had some very unfair elections in the past twenty years.

As for the opening post, this poll is too American for me. But Americans were polled so why wouldn't they come up with this result. But I wonder if there was a world wide poll? What would the result be if you polled people in all countries of the world.

Seriously? No Pink Floyd? No Yes? (That sounds peculiar) No U2?


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

The Right Connection - Psalm 19 (1976)

They get my vote.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> We here in British Columbia are currently voting for either this system or keeping the old first past the post system. If we change, it'll be the provincial government only, not federal. We are mailing in our ballot right now. The result will be available at the end of the month. We've had some very unfair elections in the past twenty years.


I prefer MMP at least nasty little things can't be hurried through.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2018)

Dan Ante said:


> I thought the Beatles were a pop band, this is the first time I have heard them called a rock band





norman bates said:


> rock and roll is different from rock. The Beatles (and many other bands in that list) can't be considered rock and roll.


What they said.

"Rock and roll" is not the same as "rock" though there are some similarities. Certainly, The Beatles included rock and roll standards (eg Roll Over Beethoven) in their repertoire, but I fail to see how that qualifies them as a RnR band. _Dear Prudence_, a rock 'n roll song? It's not even rock.

Tiresomely, these terms have, according to some dictionaries, become synonymous. It's part of the evolution of the language towards an undesirable homogeneity. How long before RnR covers techno, grime, hip-hop, rap, house, folk? Or one of those terms subsumes RnR?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> What they said.
> 
> "Rock and roll" is not the same as "rock" though there are some similarities. Certainly, The Beatles included rock and roll standards (eg Roll Over Beethoven) in their repertoire, but I fail to see how that qualifies them as a RnR band. _Dear Prudence_, a rock 'n roll song? It's not even rock.
> 
> Tiresomely, these terms have, according to some dictionaries, become synonymous. It's part of the evolution of the language towards an undesirable homogeneity. How long before RnR covers techno, grime, hip-hop, rap, house, folk? Or one of those terms subsumes RnR?


An unsolvable problem. Taxonomy is a thorny subject when attempted amongst things that vary along a spectrum, or many spectrums. The only taxonomists currently relatively happy are those dealing with DNA-containing organisms, where one can begin to clearly identify ancestors and descendants. It might be easier to concentrate on individual songs rather than on bands or artists, when deciding what box to put things in, as many bands' outputs contain all sorts of disparate materials. D'yer Mak'er?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Stones and the Beatles made great pop and rock n roll. But Chuck Berry wrote the textbook on rock n roll. Just ask Keef, he'll tell ya.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Miles Davis had the best rock band. Sez me.

Seriously, I'm glad to see the Dead make the list at all. But WHERE is Pink Floyd? The Kinks should be there too...


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

I forgot AC/DC!!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> The Beatles' great crime was fostering the man who would compose and perform _Imagine_.


I am not a huge Beatles fan, nor a huge Lennon fan, but what is wrong with "Imagine"? There are far worse rock songs.

And the sentiment of the song is quite hopeful.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

philoctetes said:


> Miles Davis had the best rock band. Sez me.
> 
> Seriously, I'm glad to see the Dead make the list at all. But WHERE is Pink Floyd? The Kinks should be there too...


Floyd isn't a rock n roll band. But the Kinks are one of the great bands. Gerry Garcia could play anything.

Miles's Jack Johnson is a good rock record.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

KenOC said:


> BBC reports on the greatest rock and roll bands of all time. Not surprisingly, the Beatles place first. But:
> 
> "Surprisingly, the finding also illustrates that the Beatles' popularity among Republicans has plunged over the past decade as a result of the current political climate. Opinions of the group have seen quite the adjustment across all political affiliations.
> 
> ...


Fascinating. .....


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Floyd isn't a rock n roll band.


With all respect, of course they are.

Don't confuse sub-genres with the parent genre.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

eljr said:


> With all respect, of course they are.
> 
> Don't confuse sub-genres with the parent genre.


I consider them psychedelic droners. They are masters of space and simplicity. They don't waste any notes.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> I am not a huge Beatles fan, nor a huge Lennon fan, but what is wrong with "Imagine"? There are far worse rock songs.
> 
> And the sentiment of the song is quite hopeful.


The lyrics of _Imagine_ express sentiments and ideas anathema to America's Right Wing. My irony seems not to have been universally identified.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

eljr said:


> With all respect, of course they are.
> 
> Don't confuse sub-genres with the parent genre.


I think that the parent genre here is rock, and rock and roll, even if it was what started what we call rock music, is a subgenre. 
But even if I don't think that to be considered to be a rock and roll band or musician it's strictly necessary to have played in the fifties, I think that rock'n'roll has an element that defines it and it's that rock and roll is dance music, in a way or another. So I don't have a problem considering Ac/Dc, The stooges, Cramps, The new york dolls, Van Halen or Motorhead rock and roll bands, even if their music is different from what Chuck Berry or Elvis were doing, but Pink Floyd don't have anything to do with rock and roll. Rock band? Sure. Rock and roll? They don't have the "roll" part.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Sabbath. The first 6 albums are peerless.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Merl said:


> Sabbath. The first 6 albums are peerless.


You'll usually see them around the number 1 spot on metal lists, the genre they properly belong to.

As far as rock goes I agree with the poster suggesting U2 should be on a top 20 list, another band I feel this list over looks that easily deserves to be there is The Smiths.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

No Tull, no credibility.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

We might consider a new category in which to file much of the very finest "popular" music that is clearly neither Pop nor Rock'n'Roll nor Folk-Rock nor Prog, Metal, Rockabilly or whatever else. It could/should be called Rock Art Song (not Art Rock because Rolling Stone magazine made that term a clumsy synonym for Prog years ago). Songs like Kashmir, or a lot of Pink Floyd, or Jefferson Airplane or Theme for an Imaginary Western fit into that category. They often tell stories or set scenes or establish moods outside of the usually postulated musical or lyrical boundaries that fairly clearly define other genres; they are not intended to be danced to, or to be nuclei for raves or expressions of group solidarity; they often appear to be expressions of "art" meant to appeal to individuals/audiences gathered to hear such expressions of "art". They are also often not about love/romance/good times--the usual fodder of much popular music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2018)

Jacck said:


> my mental image of a typical conservative is a gun loving hypocritical bigotted ******* who lives in constant contradictions (only God can create life, so abortions are evil VS death penalty against underage and mentally ill etc, now suddently it is possible to take lives). These people must have hated Beatles for sure. Beatles were half-hippies, Lennon took a lot of LSD and composed music about it and then sung about "free love". *If Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is not about an LSD trip, then I do not know about what.* On the other hand the leftist SJWs with their political correctness, insane feminism and similar excesses is not much more sympathetic either. That is the problem of having just 2 political parties.


Clearly you don't know about what. John - corroborated by Paul - stated that this song was inspired by a drawing his child made and Alice in Wonderland. I'm not arguing that they didn't have LSD-inspired songs - Tomorrow Never Knows off of Revolver, for example - but Lucy is not one.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2018)

Some of the Beatles harbored conservative sentiments. Don't believe me? Listen to Harrison's rip on taxation in Britain in Taxman. One of the most overtly conservative songs out there.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Some of the Beatles harbored conservative sentiments. Don't believe me? Listen to Harrison's rip on taxation in Britain in Taxman. One of the most overtly conservative songs out there.


Ah, the rich complaining about taxes! Nothing new there. But as I remember, the tax rates on people with the Beatles' income was ruinous at that time... Great song, though!


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2018)

KenOC said:


> Ah, the rich complaining about taxes! Nothing new there. But as I remember, the tax rates on people with the Beatles' income was ruinous at that time... Great song, though!


Well, they put in the work for it. From 1963-1970, they put out 13 albums (we can quibble about Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine), acted in two movies, initially toured all over. Why should others be more entitled to it than they? But yes - it was ruinous at the time, in the U.S. as well.

I don't put much stock in polls that try to link political ideology with unrelated topics. I think you can make any kind of association you like. I'm sure there is some kind of link between party affiliation and kale consumption. But it is pointless. I think it has more to do with regional tastes. For example, areas where country music is more popular more than likely also tend to be more conservative. Does that mean causality? I doubt it. I think it is more due to other externalities, and the culture in general, and that it is nothing more than correlation. Some music, though, does pander more to one mindset than another, purposely being antagonistic to one particular political ideology. Punk rock - music I greatly enjoyed in my youth - used to be more anarchic, espousing more of a "pox on both your houses" mentality. As most of those musicians got older, they tended to go more liberal, and now are just tired old leftists, with very few exceptions.

But I don't think there is anything politically polarizing in the Beatles' body of work, other than occasional "potshots" at one side or another. After all, in addition to Taxman, Paul's sentiments in Let It Be seems to fly in the face of current "Resistance!" mentality on the left.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> DrMike: "I think it has more to do with regional tastes. For example, areas where country music is more popular more than likely also tend to be more conservative. Does that mean causality? I doubt it. I think it is more due to other externalities, and the culture in general, and that it is nothing more than correlation."


What might those externalities be? Mere correlation can become interesting indeed if we can tease out the underlying externalities/causative factors that account for a flock of cultural or ideological geese all flying in the same direction.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Well, they put in the work for it. From 1963-1970, they put out 13 albums (we can quibble about Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine), acted in two movies, initially toured all over. Why should others be more entitled to it than they? But yes - it was ruinous at the time, in the U.S. as well.
> 
> I don't put much stock in polls that try to link political ideology with unrelated topics. I think you can make any kind of association you like. I'm sure there is some kind of link between party affiliation and kale consumption. But it is pointless. I think it has more to do with regional tastes. For example, areas where country music is more popular more than likely also tend to be more conservative. Does that mean causality? I doubt it. I think it is more due to other externalities, and the culture in general, and that it is nothing more than correlation. Some music, though, does pander more to one mindset than another, purposely being antagonistic to one particular political ideology. Punk rock - music I greatly enjoyed in my youth - used to be more anarchic, espousing more of a "pox on both your houses" mentality. As most of those musicians got older, they tended to go more liberal, and now are just tired old leftists, with very few exceptions.
> 
> But I don't think there is anything politically polarizing in the Beatles' body of work, other than occasional "potshots" at one side or another. After all, in addition to Taxman, Paul's sentiments in Let It Be seems to fly in the face of current "Resistance!" mentality on the left.


I am not gonna try to unravel this in script here and now but you are missing much.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Inevitable this would come down to genre slinging. What a waste of time. Some of you have no credibility.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Genre slinging. Sounds like an Olympic sport, along with the hammer throw, shot put, and javelin.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Clearly you don't know about what. John - corroborated by Paul - stated that this song was inspired by a drawing his child made and Alice in Wonderland. I'm not arguing that they didn't have LSD-inspired songs - Tomorrow Never Knows off of Revolver, for example - but Lucy is not one.


That story was a cynical sop for the anti-drug press, as anyone lucky enough to have ingested a hit or two of pure LSD-25 should be able to tell you.  Anyone who has not is unqualified to interpret the lyric.  Of course it's about acid.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> That story was a cynical sop for the anti-drug press, as anyone lucky enough to have ingested a hit or two of pure LSD-25 should be able to tell you.  Anyone who has not is not qualified to interpret the lyric.  Of course it's about acid.


There is more evidence it had nothing to do with acid. The band members were not hiding their drug use, certainly not anymore. But they have stuck to the story of the origin of the song. So - believe your interpretation, or what Paul and John themselves said? Not a tough choice.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> That story was a cynical sop for the anti-drug press, as anyone lucky enough to have ingested a hit or two of pure LSD-25 should be able to tell you.  Anyone who has not is not qualified to interpret the lyric.  Of course it's about acid.


I believe Eddie knows bast!


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> That story was a cynical sop for the anti-drug press, as anyone lucky enough to have ingested a hit or two of pure LSD-25 should be able to tell you.


:tiphat:

.......................


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> There is more evidence it had nothing to do with acid. The band members were not hiding their drug use, certainly not anymore. But they have stuck to the story of the origin of the song. So - believe your interpretation, or what Paul and John themselves said? Not a tough choice.


You gonna believe some random drugheads or our own EB? I'll take EB!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DrMike said:


> There is more evidence it had nothing to do with acid. The band members were not hiding their drug use, certainly not anymore. But they have stuck to the story of the origin of the song. So - believe your interpretation, or what Paul and John themselves said? Not a tough choice.


Of course: *L*ucy in the *S*ky with *D*iamonds was just a fanciful child's phrase. In other news, "Spanish Castle Magic" was about a vacation in Seville, "Purple Haze" was about air pollution, and the "*B*ig *U*nshaven *M*an" accepting free drinks from aspiring writers in Gaddis's _The Recognitions_ was Ernest Hemmingway.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

DrMike said:


> There is more evidence it had nothing to do with acid. The band members were not hiding their drug use, certainly not anymore. But they have stuck to the story of the origin of the song. So - believe your interpretation, or what Paul and John themselves said? Not a tough choice.


Doctor Mike, I'm afraid you'll have to see a specialist for that. You need to ring my friend I said you'd call, Dr. Robert.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

Riddle me this - if they had no problem admitting the origins for other music of theirs, why would they have felt the need to stick by what you all claim to be a false narrative? I mean, its not like Paul has had problems admitting embarrassing actions that he and John undertook together (why he would be okay admitting group ************ but hide LSD use and influence seems a bit of a stretch).


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

philoctetes said:


> Inevitable this would come down to genre slinging.


I wish it would. I can't see how debating the inspiration for a single Beatles song helps us determine (if such a thing is even possible) the "greatest rock and roll band."

First, identify what rock and roll is.
Second, identify those bands that play it to a sufficient extent.
Third, identify the criteria for identifying greatness (No, Ken, not with your pesky Greatness-O-Meter!)
Fourth, place bands in order.

Simples!


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

The Velvet Underground obviously. To me they're the purest distillation of the spirit of 'rock and roll': aggressively drilling a couple of guitar chords into the ground with feeling.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

Gallus said:


> The Velvet Underground obviously. To me they're the purest distillation of the spirit of 'rock and roll': aggressively drilling a couple of guitar chords into the ground with feeling.


Love the Velvets! Especially the S/T album. Sadly not appreciated enough as a band - but as was said, very few people bought their albums, but everyone who did went on to form a band.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Love the Velvets! Especially the S/T album. Sadly not appreciated enough as a band


maybe they don't have the commercial success of Elvis or The Beatles, but The velvet underground are always mentioned as one of the most important and more influential rock bands ever. And I can't think of an album more revered than The velvet underground and Nico.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

norman bates said:


> maybe they don't have the commercial success of Elvis or The Beatles, but The velvet underground are always mentioned as one of the most important and more influential rock bands ever. And I can't think of an album more revered than The velvet underground and Nico.


Lou Reed's solo career is also underrated in my opinion. After he died Neil Young is my favorite performer.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Any fans of Lou Reed's The Blue Mask? It's got some great sounding guitars, and bass by Fernando Saunders. And Lou's songs and vocals are impressive.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

*Definition Of Rock* - The Music that gives a middle finger to the status quo. All other rock is derivative and falls more or less along the commercial wave that rides behind the cutting edge of "rock". "Rock" has evolved over time from the diatonic gyrations of Elvis through the more chromatic Beatles, past acid and folk, disco, punk, and new wave. The middle finger is currently being waved in Rap.

Please note - the poll cited above in the thread start is taken from a group of "average Americans" and not from a group of music nerds in a Classical Music Forum. Consider the source!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The middle finger has been gone from rock for a long time. In fact rock itself is headed for the trash bin of popular culture.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Riddle me this - if they had no problem admitting the origins for other music of theirs, why would they have felt the need to stick by what you all claim to be a false narrative? I mean, its not like Paul has had problems admitting embarrassing actions that he and John undertook together (why he would be okay admitting group ************ but hide LSD use and influence seems a bit of a stretch).


A perfectly understandable explanation would be Lennon's (and then the other Beatles') reluctance to be on record about the song's title and secondary inspiration once Lennon had linked the song to his own young son. It may well be that the initial trigger was young Julian's picture, and then as the creative wheels turned, the LSD possibilities took over the song. But a praiseworthy parental reticence kept Lennon from associating his son in any way with the questionable drug.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Riddle me this - if they had no problem admitting the origins for other music of theirs, why would they have felt the need to stick by what you all claim to be a false narrative? I mean, its not like Paul has had problems admitting embarrassing actions that he and John undertook together (why he would be okay admitting group ************ but hide LSD use and influence seems a bit of a stretch).


Need? There's no need whatever. Everyone and their mom knows they took acid. There's nothing to hide. It just spoils a good joke to have to actually state the obvious. So why do they perpetuate the story?:

1. Because it's funny?
2. Because they enjoy having the credulous on?
3. Because to repudiate the story would be like having to claim Paul isn't really dead. The transparency of the falsehood makes it impossible to issue a retraction without rolling ones eyes.
4. A retraction would be anathema to anyone with a sense of humor.
5. Or maybe it's what SM said. ^ ^ ^


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

starthrower said:


> The middle finger has been gone from rock for a long time. In fact rock itself is headed for the trash bin of popular culture.


The whole purpose of the definition is that "rock" has changed and evolved according to the times. The "rock" you are referring to had its middle finger moment long ago, that's why it's no longer vital.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I am really out of my league here. So taking into account most know more than I do about this...

There are a few current bands that I have followed like Phish and Dave Matthews.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the Mothers of Invention and Chicago.

Also if Elvis can make the list why not Bob Dylan?

This is one of the reasons I have problems with list like who are the ten greatest opera composers. There will always be many noteworthy artists that do not make the list. Such lists may be helpful to those who are new to the genre and are wanting to learn more about it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Room2201974 said:


> The whole purpose of the definition is that "rock" has changed and evolved according to the times. The "rock" you are referring to had its middle finger moment long ago, that's why it's no longer vital.


I've heard the argument that rock isn't actually dead because the money these days isn't in downloads or CDs, it's in live performance. Rock bands play live. I think I even heard the claim that rock is the top grossing genre these days? Note that my source for this is likely something I heard on NPR at either end of my afternoon nap, so … more (any?) research is needed!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> I've heard the argument that rock isn't actually dead because the money these days isn't in downloads or CDs, it's in live performance. Rock bands play live. I think I even heard the claim that rock is the top grossing genre these days? Note that my source for this is likely something I heard on NPR at either end of my afternoon nap, so … more (any?) research is needed!


My son who is a studio musician in LA and is on the faculty of the Musicians Institute told me that many groups do a lot of merchandising: Selling tee shirts and coffee mugs, etc.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Need? There's no need whatever. Everyone and their mom knows they took acid. There's nothing to hide. It just spoils a good joke to have to actually state the obvious. So why do they perpetuate the story?:
> 
> 1. Because it's funny?
> 2. Because they enjoy having the credulous on?
> ...


First - I don't know what SM said (on purpose).
Second - you are moving the goal posts. I'm not denying they were heavily using drugs, or that they may have been under the influence. My argument is that the song is not about drugs. Get the 50th anniversary re-release of Sgt. Pepper and you can hear the 1st take, which doesn't even have the chorus featuring the phrase that would lead so many to think it was about LSD. Read this NPR article and you can see the actual drawing by Julian that John said was his inspiration.
https://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2017/05/18/528653705/the-beatles-first-take-of-lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds
Written while on an acid trip? Maybe. Influenced by LSD? Maybe. About LSD? No.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Nice to know I'm back on the Good Doctor's Ignore list (again)!

Listened to the audio clip. It tells us nothing new. I've always liked the line about the flowers being "so incredibly high".


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Any fans of Lou Reed's The Blue Mask? It's got some great sounding guitars, and bass by Fernando Saunders. And Lou's songs and vocals are impressive.


But starthrower, Lou and the Velvets weren't rock n roll they were nothing but opiated droners...


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Well, this being a discussion about rock n roll, among a bunch of Brits, and we decide that the middle finger is the fundamental index of the art, and I look through the posts, and I notice one outstanding omission, that many of my California friends would place higher than even the almighty Dead...

I just wanna know who, who are you, who made up this list of middle-finger wavers who would leave out The Who?

They're not MY favorite band, but My Generation does kinda sum it up for me... and I just like to be contrarian...

"Why dontcha all f-f-f..."


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DrMike said:


> First - I don't know what SM said (on purpose).
> Second - you are moving the goal posts. I'm not denying they were heavily using drugs, or that they may have been under the influence. My argument is that the song is not about drugs. Get the 50th anniversary re-release of Sgt. Pepper and you can hear the 1st take, which doesn't even have the chorus featuring the phrase that would lead so many to think it was about LSD. Read this NPR article and you can see the actual drawing by Julian that John said was his inspiration.
> https://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2017/05/18/528653705/the-beatles-first-take-of-lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds
> Written while on an acid trip? Maybe. Influenced by LSD? Maybe. About LSD? No.


You must not know many three year olds if you believe that picture was made by one! The chorus wasn't recorded? Or at least it wasn't included on the tape provided. That is meaningless. You realize that recordings like this use multi-tracking and not all parts are recorded at once, right? It's the title of the song! What do you think "and you're gone" means? It's not about LSD. It's about an acid trip, or acid trips in general.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Let's analyze this one:

Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever

Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone
But it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me

Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields.
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever

No one I think is in my tree
I mean, it must be high or low
That is, you can't, you know, tune in
But it's all right
That is, I think it's not too bad

Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever

Always, no sometimes, think it's me
But you know I know when it's a dream
I think I know I mean a yes
But it's all wrong
That is I think I disagree

Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry fields forever
Strawberry fields forever
Strawberry fields forever


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Good thing they didn't use telltale acronyms in that one or they would have had to make up another story! ^ ^ ^


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Happiness is a Warm Bun


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds/
But of course this won't sway any of you either.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds/
> But of course this won't sway any of you either.


You are correct; nothing is changed. The Snopes version is yet another retelling of the "clean" tale, and supports my thesis that, _ex post facto_, John Lennon sought to shield his young son, and the others all fell into line. A rather poignant example of a parent attempting to limit collateral damage, upon reflection upon his behavior.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope
Money for snope

Ha I cheated


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> A perfectly understandable explanation would be Lennon's (and then the other Beatles') reluctance to be on record about the song's title and secondary inspiration once Lennon had linked the song to his own young son. It may well be that the initial trigger was young Julian's picture, and then as the creative wheels turned, the LSD possibilities took over the song. But a praiseworthy parental reticence kept Lennon from associating his son in any way with the questionable drug.


Another possibility is that one or both parents helped with the picture, like adding those surprisingly well wrought and colored diamonds, so it could be used as an alibi for the title. If this were the case, it would certainly explain why they would stick with the explanation years later: That would be an embarrassing admission.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Another possibility is that one or both parents helped with the picture, like adding those surprisingly well wrought and colored diamonds, so it could be used as an alibi for the title. If this were the case, it would certainly explain why they would stick with the explanation years later: That would be an embarrassing admission.


The epitome of the conspiracy theory - well of course they are denying it, that just proves it more. There were multiple corroborating sources, and Lennon was conspicuously unabashed in interviews and candid almost to a fault. And the origin of the song from something as whimsical as a picture his child drew is completely aligned with other songs he wrote at the time - a carnival poster, newspaper articles, a story of numerous holes being discovered.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

The things you read on the internet.....


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> The epitome of the conspiracy theory - well of course they are denying it, that just proves it more. There were multiple corroborating sources, and Lennon was conspicuously unabashed in interviews and candid almost to a fault. And the origin of the song from something as whimsical as a picture his child drew is completely aligned with other songs he wrote at the time - a carnival poster, newspaper articles, a story of numerous holes being discovered.


We can choose between competing conspiracies: one to saddle the Beatles with a spurious link of LSD to the perfectly innocent song and title; the other by the Beatles to disavow/hide the linkage. Only The Fool on the Hill and Nowhere Man know the answer.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DrMike said:


> The epitome of the conspiracy theory - well of course they are denying it, that just proves it more. There were multiple corroborating sources, and Lennon was conspicuously unabashed in interviews and candid almost to a fault. And the origin of the song from something as whimsical as a picture his child drew is completely aligned with other songs he wrote at the time - a carnival poster, newspaper articles, a story of numerous holes being discovered.


No, the epitome of a conspiracy theory is not to present an explanation as one of several possibilities, as I did, it is to argue that that theory and it alone must be true. The most unlikely story is the one The Beatles pushed. What explains their subsequent behavior is not altogether clear. Hence the speculation.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

They were thinking ahead to when they would be 64...


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Diverting back to the topic in hand
Led Zep best rock band, Beetles best pop band
Good to see the brits still coming out on top

On other matters I am about to take some acid so that I can provide the definitive answer to the other question.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Haydn man said:


> Good to see the brits still coming out on top
> 
> On other matters I am about to take some acid so that I can provide the definitive answer to the other question.


"Brit" in name only. They're truly the greatest Irish band ever!

I suggest citric acid. You'll find that in the tangerine trees and marmalade skies.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Haydn man said:


> Diverting back to the topic in hand
> Led Zep best rock band, Beetles best pop band
> Good to see the brits still coming out on top
> 
> On other matters I am about to take some acid so that I can provide the definitive answer to the other question.


IF there is such a thing as Greatest Rock or Pop Band(s), I would tend to agree with the selections here. My enthusiasm for both bands is high, so incredibly high. The fact that both bands are "British", _sensu lato_, is interesting; does the output of British bands and artists differ from that of their North American counterparts in any definable way? I've always been intrigued by this quote of actor William Hurt, in explaining his choice of where to study his craft: "[I chose America over England] because I preferred the passion that seeks the form rather than the form that seeks the passion". Do not examples such as Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell _et al_ illustrate passion seeking form, whereas Led Zep, the Beatles, the Stones, etc. demonstrate form seeking passion?

True or false, though, Rock and Pop are so much stronger, richer, more substantive because of the fact that the music was taken up so eagerly on both sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Haydn man said:


> Diverting back to the topic in hand
> Led Zep best rock band, Beetles best pop band


I can't comment upon rock as I was never a follower but regarding the Beatles being a pop group I agree with you 100% but they were classed as a rock band in the first few posts on this thread? do Americans and the British have different methods of classification? There was a thread that I got involved in a few months ago where 'Rag' music was classed as 'Classical' which is a thing I cannot accept but I just mention this in passing I do not wish to start on that again.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> IF there is such a thing as Greatest Rock or Pop,Band(s), I would tend to agree with the selections here. My enthusiasm for both bands is high, so incredibly high. The fact that both bands are "British", _sensu lato_, is interesting; does the output of British bands and artists differ from that of their North American counterparts in any definable way? I've always been intrigued by this quote of actor William Hurt, in explaining his choice of where to study his craft: "[I chose America over England] because I preferred the passion that seeks the form rather than the form that seeks the passion". Do not examples such as Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell _et al_ illustrate passion seeking form, whereas Led Zep, the Beetles, the Stones, etc. demonstrate form seeking passion?
> 
> True or false, though, Rock and Pop are so much stronger, richer, more substantive because of the fact that the music was taken up so eagerly on both sides of the Atlantic.


I think true is the answer.
Just the we brits were better than the colonial upstarts
Rock and Roll came from the USA, perhaps British teenagers were quicker to react to and then adapt it


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Haydn man said:


> Diverting back to the topic in hand
> Led Zep best rock band,


Disqualified due to the theft of intellectual property rights! They are the "China" of rock and roll!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Haydn man said:


> I think true is the answer.
> Just the we brits were better than the colonial upstarts
> Rock and Roll came from the USA, perhaps British teenagers were quicker to react to and then adapt it


Despite my assertion that Led Zep and the Beatles could be selected as Greatest Bands, were such a concept to be so recognized, I do think it would be for their mastery of, or ready adoption of, Form (over Passion). That is perhaps the British genius in Rock and Pop. Yet, were I forced to limit myself to either the music of the eastern shores of the Atlantic or of its western side, I should tearfully choose the latter, the tradition of The Doors, Laura Nyro, the Airplane, Hendrix, Joni M., Neil Young, Dylan, and all their heirs and predecessors--those who can be thought to have sought Form only as a receptacle/matrix for pre-existing and highly urgent Passion. There are of course innumerable counterexamples that can and should be mentioned, but over the broad decades of Rock and Pop, I do see the truth of William Hurt's insight into the differences between the two sides--"American" and "British"--of this coin


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I feel the Manavishnu Orchestra should be in the list. But any best-of list is really a popularity contest in the end.


----------



## radiodurans (Dec 8, 2018)

I'm sorry, but a list of greatest rock bands without 'The Who" in the top 3 is an absolute joke and disgrace. The Beatles I'd classify more as "pop". . . Springsteen is overrated as a rock act, I'd put him maybe at the top of Smooth Jazz. . . "Journey" alongside "The Jimmy Hendrix Experience" spells total failure in ranking.


----------



## Frank Freaking Sinatra (Dec 6, 2018)

"The poll *randomly sampled 805 adults* aged 18 and older over the course of four days and asked a series of questions ranging from best rock and roll band or group of all-time to whether or not the Beatles appeal more to people with liberal or conservative beliefs."

Monmouth University (located in Nova Caesarea - :lol conducted the poll and asked 805 *randomly sampled* adults their opinion of the best rock and roll band or group of all time and it took 7 pages and almost a 100 posts before everyone realized that perhaps 805 *randomly sampled* adults may not be the best judges to make such a determination?

How many of the randomly sampled adults could have named at least 10 of the names on this list?

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/100-greatest-artists-147446/talking-heads-49251/

Here's the Wikipedia definition of "rock and roll" -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll

"Rock and roll (often written as rock & roll or rock 'n' roll) is a genre of popular music that originated and evolved in the United States during the late 1940s and early 1950s from musical styles such as gospel, jump blues, jazz, boogie woogie, and rhythm and blues, along with country music. While elements of what was to become rock and roll can be heard in blues records from the 1920s and in country records of the 1930s, the genre did not acquire its name until 1954.

According to Greg Kot, "rock and roll" refers to a style of popular music originating in the U.S. in the 1950s prior to its development by the mid-1960s into "the more encompassing international style known as rock music, though the latter also continued to be known as rock and roll." For the purpose of differentiation, this article deals with the first definition.

In the earliest rock and roll styles, either the piano or saxophone was typically the lead instrument, but these instruments were generally replaced or supplemented by guitar in the middle to late 1950s. The beat is essentially a dance rhythm with an accentuated backbeat, which is almost always provided by a snare drum. Classic rock and roll is usually played with one or two electric guitars (one lead, one rhythm), a double bass or string bass or (after the mid-1950s) an electric bass guitar, and a drum kit."

So if the music doesn't have a beat that is essentially a dance rhythm with an accentuated backbeat it's not rock and roll so go back and change all of your choices which include music that doesn't have a beat that is essentially a dance rhythm with an accentuated backbeat.

And if it doesn't have one or two electric guitars (one lead, one rhythm), an electric bass guitar, and a drum kit than it is not "classic rock and roll".

You could also have a piano (I'll have to edit the Wikipedia article) but once you start adding anything other than that it no longer qualifies as "classic rock and roll".

And besides, everyone knows that the Rolling Stones are the "World's Greatest Rock & Roll Band".


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

I kept on going
Page after page
My horror growing
Rage upon rage
Where were the Who
Where were the Dead
Not rock and rollers
I screamed in my dread...


Seriously, under "crank it" in the dictionary, you'll find "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "U.S. Blues" right up there at the top, won't you?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Greatest rock band = *Led Zeppelin*


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

*Led Zeppelin * No question


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

radiodurans said:


> I'm sorry, but a list of greatest rock bands without 'The Who" in the top 3 is an absolute joke and disgrace. The Beatles I'd classify more as "pop". . . Springsteen is overrated as a rock act, I'd put him maybe at the top of Smooth Jazz. . . "Journey" alongside "The Jimmy Hendrix Experience" spells total failure in ranking.


I saw Led Zep twice, The Who Twice, Sabbath twice, Deep purple three times, and many others and The Who come fifth


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Top Three Rock Bands:

Led Zep
Cream
Hendrix Experience


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Top Three Rock Bands:
> 
> Led Zep
> Cream
> Hendrix Experience


absolutely agree - the soundtrack of my early life


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Top three:

The Monks
The Sonics
The Kingsmen

Honorable mention: The Shaggs


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Greatest rock band = *Led Zeppelin*


I have to give the title to The Rolling Stones.

Led Zep
Cream
Hendrix Experience
Grateful Dead

round out the top 5


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Dan Ante said:


> I thought the Beatles were a pop band, this is the first time I have heard them called a rock band


At the time they were considered to be many things, including "rock band". I have some very old LPs of theirs for which the covers have a notation to "file under vocal group".

Of course, as rock and pop music evolved, so did our perceptions of what might be a rock group. Nowadays we mostly hear the *Beatles* as a Pop/Rock band, but as a band they really expanded the palette of both pop and rock.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

So, imagine you're in the middle of doing who knows what, and your phone rings.

"Hi, I'm a researcher from Monmouth Uni and I'd like to take a minute of your time to ask just a few questions about music. Is that alright?"

"Well, not really, I'm rather busy...but...er...go on then."

"Thank you so much. My first question is, _What do you think is the greatest Rock and Roll band or group of all time_?"

"What? Really...er...I don't know...rock 'n roll you say?...um...er...The Beatles I guess...are they rock n roll?"

[etc]

Telephone 805 adults ("at random" - though with a demographic spread) and ask them such a question, presumably without the time to "define terms" and you'll get an answer off the top of the head. I'm sure a few of these random adults were music aficionados and would be able to tell the difference between rock and rock n' roll and would have known something about The Beatles' musical output.

Note that while 23% said The Beatles, (more than any other named band), 19% said 'other' (presumably unnamed) and 21% said none. So, 77% did _not _name The Beatles.

I think we can safely conclude that this survey does not give us anything like a definitive, global and objective answer to the question asked.

In fact, even the headline on Monmouths' own polling website drops the word 'roll'!

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_110818/

I suppose it might answer a question such as, "Which band still holds greater sway than any other, subliminally in the minds of (a really small number of) the American public?"


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Forster said:


> So, imagine you're in the middle of doing who knows what, and your phone rings.
> 
> "Hi, I'm a researcher from Monmouth Uni and I'd like to take a minute of your time to ask just a few questions about music. Is that alright?"
> 
> ...


Note that while 23% said The Beatles, (more than any other named band), 19% said 'other' (presumably unnamed) and 21% said none. So, 77% did _not _name The Beatles.

That is recontextualizing the results though. 23% said The Beatles, more than any other band, yes? I mean, really, there are dozens of rock and roll bands from which to choose, and more folks rattled off The Beatles off the tops of their heads.

Honestly, think of the many, many, many rock bands from 70 years of rock and roll:

Bill Haley
Buddy Holly
The Beach Boys
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Animals
The Mothers of Invention
Cream
Buffalo Springfieid
Led Zeppelin
The Eagles
Jethro Tull
Yes
ELP
CCR
ELO
CSNY
Jimi Hendrix Experience

And dozens more. I haven't even touch on any post-70s bands and I've left out dozens of 70s bands


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Jay said:


> Top three:
> The Sonics


god, yeah. the correct way to play Roll Over Beethoven - drums so loud that you're overdriving your mic, and with the most paint-melting guitar solo on record. Most other white versions (god, the Beatles version) sound so limp and fake in comparision.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

fbjim said:


> god, yeah. the correct way to play Roll Over Beethoven - drums so loud that you're overdriving your mic, and with the most paint-melting guitar solo on record. Most other white versions (god, the Beatles version) sound so limp and fake in comparision.


Not bad. The vocals seem uninspired. The handclaps are quaint. I think they recorded without a click track. The guitar solo is a cover of *George Harrison*'s solo from The Beatles' version.

I like the piano, even if the keyboardist seems to overuse glissandos.

Compare, though, those "wimpy" white band covers to the original from Chuck Berry (here's the studio version [1956], and a live version) - Berry has some genuine ENERGY in his renditions:


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Oh yeah, it took a while (ever?) for things like skiffle and UK white blues to actually sound like they were playing early rock correctly. The Sonics mostly got around this by sheer volume, which is always a valid choice when it comes to playing old-school rock.

They also did "Strychnine" which may be my favorite garage rock song ever.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

pianozach said:


> Note that while 23% said The Beatles, (more than any other named band), 19% said 'other' (presumably unnamed) and 21% said none. So, 77% did _not _name The Beatles.
> 
> That is recontextualizing the results though. 23% said The Beatles, more than any other band, yes? I mean, really, there are dozens of rock and roll bands from which to choose, and more folks rattled off The Beatles off the tops of their heads.


I'm not sure what point you're making here. All I was pointing to was the possibility of not interpreting the results as a declaration of fact that The Beatles are (were) the greatest r n r band.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Idk. Kiss?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Flamme said:


> Idk. Kiss?


Except for the makeup, costumes, and concert props/sets, they seem like an average bland generic rock band to me.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Plus that was a cover. Not dissing Kiss, though - I loved lots of their (own) tracks when they were a band before becoming a brand.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

CSNY and ELO? Not Rock n roll in my book. Rush is on my short list. Not only could they rock but they could play circles around a lot of bands.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Some more recent bands:

Black Crowes
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Nine Inch Nails
The White Stripes
Queens of the Stone Age


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I'm glad to see this interesting thread resurrected. I fully concur with the choices of The Beatles as "Best" Pop band and Led Zeppelin as "Best" Rock band. Led Zep combined very high technical musicianship with wide-ranging lyrical subjects and strong and accessible melodies; The Beatles did likewise except for the musicianship, but compensated for that by sometimes incorporating interesting acoustic effects into their songs. But also very important in evaluating a band practicing "popular music"--as are Pop and Rock--is that they appealed to a large if not gigantic audience. People may say that Band X (fill in the name of your personal hobbyhorse) is The Greatest, and it's a tragedy that they moved so few units, but I have no sympathy for this view--it is (IMO) an inherent component in the evaluation of any band that they have been widely Popular in a genre that is defined. at least in part, by Popularity.

There are numerous listings on the Internet of "Best" groups--most units moved, most appreciated by critics, public at large, whatever. And, not surprisingly, The Beatles lead virtually every list, and Led Zep is usually the highest rated Rock band. The following Wikipedia list is maybe 5 years old but mostly tells the tale: 

Here are the top 50 of the Wikipedia listing of artists and groups by their measurements of popularity (see the article), offered here as fodder for speculation and cogitation. I am not suggesting that units moved be the only criterion, but it shows--to me anyway--that The Public is not always wrong when it comes to "worthwhile" popular music.

The Beatles
Elvis Presley
Michael Jackson
Madonna
Elton John
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Eminem
Mariah Carey
The Eagles
Taylor Swift
Queen
Whitney Houston
Céline Dion
AC/DC
The Rolling Stones
Garth Brooks
Drake
Ed Sheeran
Billy Joel
U2
Phil Collins
Aerosmith
ABBA 
Frank Sinatra
Barbra Streisand
Katy Perry
Justin Bieber
Kanye West
Bruce Springsteen 
Bruno Mars
Jay-Z
Metallica
Lady Gaga
Adele
Fleetwood Mac
Bee Gees
Lil Wayne
Maroon 5
Chris Brown
Beyoncé
Coldplay
Linkin Park
B'z
Bon Jovi
Britney Spears
Rod Stewart
Guns N' Roses
Backstreet Boys


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

This thread should be re-named "*To Which There Is No Correct Answer*"


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Frank Zappa
Captain Beefheart
Gentle Giant
Rush
Grateful Dead
ELP
Velvet Underground
Steely Dan
Bob Dylan
Jimi Hendrix


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

The J. Geils Band (in the 1970’s)


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

jegreenwood said:


> The J. Geils Band (in the 1970's)


No doubt. J. Geils Band were good-time rockers.

Here; from 1970.






Then again, there's Jeff Beck Group. 1972.






Then again, remember *The Outlaws*?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

pianozach said:


> No doubt. J. Geils Band were good-time rockers.
> 
> Here; from 1970.
> 
> ...


I loved the Outlaws back in the day. That first album is a cracker. GG&HT and Stay With Me.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

pianozach said:


> No doubt. J. Geils Band were good-time rockers.
> 
> Here; from 1970.
> 
> ...


They were even better live.






On another forum, I learned there was talk of releasing the entire concert this recording was taken from, but Peter Wolf, the lead singer said, "No." He explained that the model for this release was _James Brown Live at the Apollo_: 30+ minutes of pure adrenalin.


----------

