OT:The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band?

Fat Drummer

DFO Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
2,666
Reaction score
1,795
Location
Tennessee
Define "rock and roll". Really, all that were "about to get" is is a list of each persons favorite band... subjective and impossible to quantify. But bring it on anyway... should still be very enjoyable.
 
Last edited:

Vistalite Black

Ludwigs in the Basement
Joined
Feb 17, 2015
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
1,387
Location
North Carolina
Just an opinion, but I don't think the Rolling Stones will be well remembered in coming decades.

Mick Jagger's voice, again in my opinion, doesn't go down smooth. If you don't have the context of 'this is a tougher, harder-edged answer to The Beatles, I don't think it's as easy to appreciate the vocals of "Jumpin Jack Flash" or "It's Only Rock and Roll."

By contrast, The Beatles always had such pleasing melodies and harmonies... Heck, half of them were like nursery rhymes or children's songs -- and once concerns about image or hair length were put to the side, your not-cool Mom or Dad grew to appreciate "Hello Goodbye" and "Michelle," etc.

The vocal styling of Jagger and Richards would never win American Idol.

Also, the Beatles (or many other 60s groups) never created cultural conflicts that are hard for people with today's racial sensitivity to understand... I still don't understand how the lyrics of "Some Girls" or "Brown Sugar" weren't greeted with greater outrage at the time and why Sugar still gets played on the radio.

There's also the outright disdain for women we hear in songs like "Under My Thumb."

I love the Rolling Stones, especially Keith's songs, but I think it'd be hard to sell them to today's young teens and adults.
 
Last edited:

lamartee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
148
Reaction score
70
Location
New York City
Define "rock and roll". Really, all that were "about to get" is is a list of each persons favorite band... subjective and impossible to quantify. But bring it on anyway... should still be very enjoyable.
Impossible to "Define rock and roll". It is by nature " .....subjective and impossible to quantify..."
I think by my original post and by the ones that followed it everyone seems to get the general idea. This is not a Masters Thesis, as Fat Drummer said "...should still be very enjoyable..." Lets hear whatcha got!
 
Last edited:

JDA

DFO Star
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
16,267
Reaction score
5,159
Location
Jeannette, Pa.
like a trademark registered copyright thing...

I mean they outlasted Herman's Hermits and Dave Clark 5.


Longest running Rock n ' Roll Band..

who's run longer? Pink Floyd?
They even outlasted Motown didn't they... is Dianna Ross still around?.

Better to debate/discuss longest running
 

lamartee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
148
Reaction score
70
Location
New York City
Just an opinion, but I don't think the Rolling Stones will be well remembered in coming decades.

Mick Jagger's voice, again in my opinion, doesn't go down smooth. If you don't have the context of 'this is a tougher, harder-edged answer to The Beatles, I don't think it's as easy to appreciate the vocals of "Jumpin Jack Flash" or "It's Only Rock and Roll."

By contrast, The Beatles always had such pleasing melodies and harmonies... Heck, half of them were like nursery rhymes or children's songs -- and once concerns about image or hair length were put to the side, your not-cool Mom or Dad grew to appreciate "Hello Goodbye" and "Michelle," etc.

The vocal styling of Jagger and Richards would never win American Idol.

Also, the Beatles (or many other 60s groups) never created cultural conflicts that are hard for people with today's racial sensitivity to understand... I still don't understand how the lyrics of "Some Girls" or "Brown Sugar" weren't greeted with greater outrage at the time and why Sugar still gets played on the radio.

There's also the outright disdain for women we hear in songs like "Under My Thumb."

I love the Rolling Stones, especially Keith's songs, but I think it'd be hard to sell them to today's young teens and adults.
I do agree with many of your thoughts and I know that today's teens and young adults would be laughing at those old men prancing around on stage. I find it hard to believe though that some 16 year old kids in a garage band 20 years from now (of course that's almost an anomaly even now but that's a whole 'nother subject)
would run across that video and not want to recreate that kind of excitement and energy.
 

Radio King

DFO Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
1,721
Location
VA Beach
Just an opinion, but I don't think the Rolling Stones will be well remembered in coming decades.

Mick Jagger's voice, again in my opinion, doesn't go down smooth. If you don't have the context of 'this is a tougher, harder-edged answer to The Beatles, I don't think it's as easy to appreciate the vocals of "Jumpin Jack Flash" or "It's Only Rock and Roll."

By contrast, The Beatles always had such pleasing melodies and harmonies... Heck, half of them were like nursery rhymes or children's songs -- and once concerns about image or hair length were put to the side, your not-cool Mom or Dad grew to appreciate "Hello Goodbye" and "Michelle," etc.

The vocal styling of Jagger and Richards would never win American Idol.

Also, the Beatles (or many other 60s groups) never created cultural conflicts that are hard for people with today's racial sensitivity to understand... I still don't understand how the lyrics of "Some Girls" or "Brown Sugar" weren't greeted with greater outrage at the time and why Sugar still gets played on the radio.

There's also the outright disdain for women we hear in songs like "Under My Thumb."

I love the Rolling Stones, especially Keith's songs, but I think it'd be hard to sell them to today's young teens and adults.
It is just your opinion, and I doubt The Stones are too worried about it. To say that they won't be well remembered because their vocals don't have such pleasing melodies and harmonies is ludicrous. Might as well throw Dylan in there, as well. As to not winning American Idol, well... If that's the pinnacle of musical achievement, there's nothing left to discuss.

Good R&R is supposed to be provocative and edgy, not warm n' fuzzy. The lyrics you chose are from a different era, but that doesn't make the songs any less great. They still get played because they're good songs. Further, I think the songs that you suggest would be a hard sell today are actually fairly tame compared to what's currently popular.

The Stones were first and foremost a blues band who just happened to evolve into first-rate songwriters (and provocateurs). They didn't set out to win popularity contests, nor would they likely have shown up to receive a trophy if they had (Jagger's recent knighthood excluded).

"Under My Thumb"? Pfffttt... Kid stuff. Try "Back Street Girl" from the same era.
 

Old Dog

Very well Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
596
Reaction score
224
What makes a band great? Number of hits? How long they've rocked?

The Beatles haven't been together for over 50 years. And they still have the most #1 hits at 20. I hear them often referred to as the most influential band ever.

For nearly the last 25 years or so, The Foo Fighters have been producing a ton of Rock. I love their music, but I don't think they've had a single #1??

It depends on what era, where YOU were in life during that era, etc. Music is different for each individual. There is NO WAY to come to a consensus--overall Greatest. Impossible.


With that said, I like the The Stones, The Who, Cream. . .I used to think it was Pink Floyd for sure. I don't know. I was a DJ for 25+years.

I think Phish is the greatest band ever. And I'm not sure if I've heard more than 2 or 3 of their songs on the local "progressive rock" station. :dontknow:
 

Vistalite Black

Ludwigs in the Basement
Joined
Feb 17, 2015
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
1,387
Location
North Carolina
It is just your opinion, and I doubt The Stones are too worried about it. To say that they won't be well remembered because their vocals don't have such pleasing melodies and harmonies is ludicrous. Might as well throw Dylan in there, as well. As to not winning American Idol, well... If that's the pinnacle of musical achievement, there's nothing left to discuss.

Good R&R is supposed to be provocative and edgy, not warm n' fuzzy. The lyrics you chose are from a different era, but that doesn't make the songs any less great. They still get played because they're good songs. Further, I think the songs that you suggest would be a hard sell today are actually fairly tame compared to what's currently popular.

The Stones were first and foremost a blues band who just happened to evolve into first-rate songwriters (and provocateurs). They didn't set out to win popularity contests, nor would they likely have shown up to receive a trophy if they had (Jagger's recent knighthood excluded).

"Under My Thumb"? Pfffttt... Kid stuff. Try "Back Street Girl" from the same era.
I’ll just post this picture of the Stones’ graybeard crowd in support of my point that young people just aren’t interested.
9D65EF0B-D9CD-4811-9D96-6D8544DE2E4D.jpeg
 

jsp210

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
180
Reaction score
201
Location
Western NC
To me, The Who take the prize having developed an original sound, produced multiple studio masterpieces that will stand the test of time (Who's Next, Tommy, Quadrophenia) and the ability to perform their music with tremendous power and energy on stage. Live at Leeds is a testament to that.

The Beatles were the most important rock band without a doubt and have the unrivaled song book but weren't doing it on the concert stage. The Stones had many great records and concert prowess but not very innovative in terms of the music they played. They have pretty much stayed close to the Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf American blues sound for the bulk of their work in my opinion. Pink Floyd were amazing creatively and I love them as I do the others mentioned but David Gilmour was the only strong player of the bunch and I don't think they burned it up on stage. The Who, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones are definitely top tier British rockers in my world. I'll take The Allman Brothers, The Grateful Dead, and The Band on this side of the Atlantic.
 

Houndog

DFO Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
1,332
Location
Oklahoma City
like a trademark registered copyright thing...

I mean they outlasted Herman's Hermits and Dave Clark 5.


Longest running Rock n ' Roll Band..

who's run longer? Pink Floyd?
They even outlasted Motown didn't they... is Dianna Ross still around?.

Better to debate/discuss longest running
Rolling Stones
ZZ-Top
U2
Aerosmith
And to mix it up I’m voting RUSH
All time greatest Prog band ..
 

Radio King

DFO Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
1,721
Location
VA Beach
I’ll just post this picture of the Stones’ graybeard crowd in support of my point that young people just aren’t interested.
View attachment 447816
You misread my intent then. I never claimed young people were interested in them. I already know that the vast majority aren't. No news flash there. I'm disputing your claim that they won't be well remembered in the future. When my peers and I were young, we weren't interested in The Rat Pack, for example. But to claim they (Sinatra, Martin, Davis Jr, et al) won't be remembered long after we're gone is absurd.
 
Last edited:


Top