Leave it to Rolling Stone to come up with another "list", and because they did it, it must be right (not). As far as being "immortals", some of these are no-brainers. Some (like Nirvana), well let's just say I would be interested in knowing if people will still be talking about them 25 years from now. They have Dr. Dre listed over HANK WILLIAMS, who pretty much invented the word "legendary" for country music. They even have Eminem on this list...spare me!!!

We're talking "immortals" here! Do these idiots even know what that word means? Forever is a long time, and I don't think there are a total of 100 modern artists who can be deemed "immortal"!!! I'm surprised "Jann The Man" didn't put his name on this, too!!!

Sorry, Steve Perry wasn't on the list.

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 07.18.08 @ 20:58pm

Nirvana and Prince 12 spots higher than The Doors??

Out of 159 total performer inductees-35 or 22% have been voted in following their 1st year of eligibility. (Rock & Roll royalty)

Yet not on this list of "Immortals" are 6 out of those very 35 Hall Of Famers inducted in their 1st year of eligibility:

REM, The Pretenders, Talking Heads, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Sam & Dave.

??????

Posted by classicrocker on Friday, 07.18.08 @ 23:35pm

A few things here: First, this list was created in 2004-2005, when Eminem still had a career going (I've heard rumor of a new album, but...). Not quite sure how a lot of people view him now.

Second - Nirvana. Since the first publication of the list, there was a box-set released in 2005("With The Lights Out") + a film was made that year by G. Van Sant. "Last Days" I believe it was called. It was a fictional job. In 2006 an additional "Best of the Box" (whatever that's really supposed to mean) was released, and in 2007 the documentary film "About a Boy" came out. The man's profile actually expanded in these intervening years, so if anything the notion that they have somehow been forgotten is ridiculous. We're at the 20 year point for Nirvana, and they're still present w/in the culture. You could even argue that 27th is actually far too low!

If you were going to do a revision to this list for now, Radiohead & NIN would have to shoot up several places, due to the effects of their Internet ventures w/ the latest albums. In terms of the old I & I, I'd personally have NIN up at 85-87, and Radiohead at maybe 63-66.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 04:55am

Cheesecrop...I guess the one thing that really bugs me about it is the word "immortal"...seems to get punched out there as much as the word "diva", which no longer has a reverant meaning nowadays. Labeling someone "immortal" is a very strong statement. There are artists on that list who will still be discussed 100 years from now, and some who will probably fall by the wayside soon, as you stated is already happening a bit.

Heck, who knows if Rolling Stone magazine will still be around or discussed in 100 years...something to think about!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 05:11am

Holy shit was that list predictable.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 05:44am

Cheesecrop...It's okay to agree to disagree about Nirvana. It kind of gets back to that argument of them being "the big new thing" to some, and others thinking "I've heard this before"...they just weren't very relevent to me (or most of my musician friends, for that matter) compared to what I've witnessed or heard previously in my life. Do I think people will be talking about them in 100 years? Not a chance! Will people beg to differ? Absolutely...and that's okay. As to who is actually right, only time will tell...

Like I stated before, "immortal" is a pretty powerful word.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 07:41am

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure anyone on that list will be relevant in a hundred years! If it's still around, rock will be going on it's 9th or 10th generation roughly. They may look back and laugh at how we sought to presume that our hideously outdated 20th century artists would last forever, and then had the gall to even debate it! I do agree w/you that "immortal" is a cliche'd term, though.

By and large I think they got some of the people right, but like everyone out there I know I'd remove a few and make some changes, even in the top 20. The problem here is that despite the still functioning careers of some of these artists, the list as RS would see it is probably not fluid. That's the real issue here, to get as amny people as possible across the board to start thinking fluidly, and w/out the rigidity that has affected a lot of folk.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 14:46pm

You know, I checked my writing and could swear I didn't misspell a thing, yet I now notice that somehow the word "many" is messed up. Is this some sort of plot to make me look foolish here?

For the record, I have perfected the art of sounding like an idiot on my own time. I don't need any help, thenk you.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 14:50pm

Gitarzan, The Doors aren't as important as you think. Most people listen to them all the time for a few months and then forget about them entirely. Way too much cheese.

I can't believe R.E.M. didn't make the list. Had RS asked more indie artists to participate in this polling, they'd have easily been Top 40. Also, CCR has a claim to being the greatest American rock act yet is absent. Hmm....

Posted by Casper on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 15:47pm

Casper...didn't say anything about The Doors, dude!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 16:14pm

Ah, I was responding to classicrocker. My bad.

Posted by Casper on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 19:32pm

Casper, when Oliver Stone does a movie about you you're important! The only bands from the 60's that are played on mainstream rock radio where I live besides the Doors are the Stones, The Kinks and Jimi Hendrix, The Doors are actually played more than the Beatles on the one station that plays old and new muusic. The Doors and the Whisky a Go Go scene were WAY more crucical to the development of rock than Nirvana and the Seattle grunge scene in the late 80's. I think if Nirvana had been around at the same time as The Doors in the late 60's Nirvana might have been pretty big on a regional basis like in the Pacific Northwest, and even if they did make it nationally by now would be pretty much forgotten.

Posted by classicrocker on Saturday, 07.19.08 @ 20:35pm

"The Doors and the Whisky a Go Go scene were WAY more crucial to the development of rock than Nirvana and the Seattle Grunge scene..."

True, they were impt. to the "development" of rock. Could you not say that Nirvana wasn't impt. to the perpetuation of rock - this being another thing I remember from the criteria.

The more I read the comments the more it becomes apparent how badly they did misjudge Nirvana. In a way you've addressed the issue for me when you mentioned how the Doors are played more than the Beatles. You're right about that. Think about it though... who helped get rid of those bands and alter the radio into the format we know today? The alternative brigade not only nudged 80's metal off the page, they also dispensed of the Allmans/REO SPeedwagon/J. Starship/Moody Blues, and a host of others who had worn out their welcome on rock radio. You are quite right when you say the Doors are still influential, because they are. They deserve to probably rate a few spots higher(I might move them up from 41 to around 36-38). I realize now though, from reading these posts, just how off the mark they are on Nirvana.

Nirvana at 27 - up to at least 15-20 - DEFINITIVE!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.20.08 @ 04:53am

(Anthony DeCurtis, Bob Hilburn, Lenny Kaye, Jon Landau, Joe Levy, Kurt Loder, Seymour Stein, Jann Wenner, etc.). [The committee]

No wonder this Hall is a half a joke. What a dumbass list.

Yardbirds - 88. I think that is a little too low on the list.

Question for backers of Nirvana. I am in no way going to try and diminish their importance, but they were neither the first or the best that came out of the Seattle scene. They were the first to have a song go into heavy rotation on MTV. Perhaps if AIC got a song into heavy rotation on MTV first, it would be them who would be on this list. IMO, they were the better band. Anyway, just wondering.

As for the Doors issue, I never thought them to be as special as all the DJ's and writers thought they were. Who was the writer that called them noting but drunks? Lester Bangs? As for their music which is still played on the classic rock radio stations - it is the same f'n 5 songs.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 07.20.08 @ 09:44am

Cheesecrop...The thing about the "grunge" era, from my point of view anyway, is that I can see where it perpetuated things on the music scene. The "hair metal" scene was getting a little redundant, and rock music needed a breath of fresh air. At that particular time I had resorted to listening more to "classics" and left the popular stuff alone. If you look back at that time, "classic rock" stations started popping up all over the place and became very popular. I guess as far as rock goes, you could've gone one way or the other. Being a "guitar man", I actually liked Pearl Jam and Soundgarden (I really liked Kim Thayil) a little better...I learned to play "Smells Like Team Spirit" after hearing it once...not much of a challenge. On the video box set "History Of Rock & Roll", Johnny Rotten said of Kurt Cobain "If you don't want to be a rock star, simply quit being one". I think it stinks if you have everything going for you in the world and have brought a new baby into it then you decide to commit suicide. IMO, that's a total cop-out, so my lasting memory of him isn't exactly favorable. If things are bothering you that bad, go get some help...or do what Johnny Rotten said.

Please remember, my young and impressionable years were post-50's Elvis (which to me was the only Elvis that mattered), The Beatles and subsequent British invasion, the psychedelic era, the perpetuation into Sgt. Peppers, Dark Side Of The Moon, Hendrix, etc...straight into the disco era (where a lot of R&B groups were making some pretty good music...not everything you heard in clubs was popular on the radio...go figure) and punk, which was kind of where I heard the likes of Nirvana before. Then came New Wave...that brings me up to my upper 20's. I don't know if we will see that sort of perpetuation in music again. It seemed to happen year after year for 20 years.

I'm not saying Nirvana is bad, to me they were just nothing really new or special. Back then I listened to everything, trying to establish my own playing style (still trying, by the way...lol), so I'd like to think there wasn't a lot that got past me. They kind of ran parallels with Garth Brooks, who was essentially doing the same thing pretty much at the same time in country when it was getting a little stale. Listing Nirvana in a group of "immortals"...maybe in Rolling Stone's book, but too much happened before that.

You're definitely right about 100 years from now...people then might listen to this music we love and think WE were the cavemen!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.20.08 @ 09:50am

I do like the conversation that this "list" has created. To me, this is a really GOOD way to discuss Rock music...with experience and rationale. The thoughts concerning this have all been good...really diverse! No "such a beautiful voice" or "they're so dreamy"!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.20.08 @ 10:25am

Allow me to re-phrase a previous statement...Elvis from the 50's...IMO..was the only Elvis that mattered (his material after his stint in the army until he died was, for the most part, not so good).

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.20.08 @ 10:44am

I think just about everyone on that list who hasn't been inducted yet, eventually will be. The only exceptions I can imagine is Lee Scratch Perry and N.W.A./Dr. Dre (I don't think Dre will get in twice).

R.E.M.'s absence is unfortunate, but their career was at its low point in 2004 when this list was made. They unquestionably deserve a spot.

Eminem is the "youngest" on the list. Is there anyone else who has come along since 1996 who should be on there? It's a risky proposition, but I'll offer up LCD Soundsystem/James Murphy for consideration.

Posted by mel on Sunday, 07.20.08 @ 12:59pm

I'm surprised Curtis Mayfield made the list. I'd have thought the Impressions would have made the list before solo Mayfield. Of course there are a few other surprises on the list. All I can say though, is that I'm glad Martha & the Vandellas placed higher than the Supremes.

I gotta admit though, the omission of Queen is a little surprising. I think they could have been on the list just as easily as some of the others that did make the list.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 07.20.08 @ 22:53pm

The omission of Queen renders the whole list useless.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 02:51am

Amazingly enough, I think RS did get the better portion of the top 20 correct. I might yank two or three out of the top 20 & replace them, and I know I might alter the rankings a bit.

Hip-Hop: If your using this to predict who's heading for the Hall, the artists should have more than a passing touch of rock in their work. Most of this list doesn't. Run D.M.C.(yes)/Beasties(yes)/P. Enemy(perhaps) - Eminem/Dre/Tupac - NO. In a hip-hop hall it would fly, but not here.

I've already mentioned Nirvana enough. Beyond them, the act I feel is most criminally underappreciated is the Byrds. Some acts can't even muster the ability to define & influence 1 kind of music, but these guys had a heavy influence on 2 - folk rock & country rock. You'd have to juggle the list a bit, but they deserve at least a 10 spot jump (45-35) - perhaps more.

As for moderns: they already made a mistake when they put NIN on the list in 05. Luckily, Reznor & co. saved the list some grief w/ the Year Zero/Ghosts I-IV double whammy. Perhaps - PERHAPS - Pearl Jam (80-100). Too hard to define "immortal" over just the last 5-10 yrs. though.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 05:17am

Dameon, where you would you slot Queen? Pink Floyd is another huge omission -- they should be around 50-60.

Cheesecrop, whether you like it or not, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame has chosen to include hip hop under the "rock & roll" umbrella. The rappers they listed are among the best, so they deserve induction.

And how is NIN a mistake? Trent has had a tremendous career. And I tend to agree with you on Pearl Jam.

Posted by mel on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 07:04am

mel...even though it's purely subjective, we're talking about names that will live forever,the modern day classical musicians. I'm of a mind to think that there's not 100 out there. Heck, I don't know if there are 20.

Forever is a very long time. It makes you wonder how people like Mozart, etc...have stood the test of time. They didn't record anything themselves, weren't on TV, etc... The only thing that survived is their music. Pretty amazing...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 07:27am

Gitarzan, if you're going to take the term Immortal literally, then of course it will be a short list -- it will have zero names. We're just talking about the 100 greatest artists of the last 50 years.

Posted by mel on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 07:48am

Simply put - Queen should be in the top 15. My personal opinion is top 10. You could not ask more from a band. They were never afraid to try something new (good or bad); they never got stale even though they lost some momentum here in the states. I still don't know of an album that can touch Queen II. They dominated the charts at a time when they were competing against the likes of Led Zep, The Who, Aerosmith, The Stones, Pink Floyd and other bands that might be considered "immortal". There live show was freakin' amazing. I first saw them when they opened for Mott The Hoople at the Uris Theatre. No front man, not Plant, Jagger, Davies, Daltrey, etc. could hold an audience in the palm of his hands like Freddie Mercury. Hands over fist, IMO, the greatest front man in the history of RnR. Brian May is one of the most unheralded guitarist ever and Deacon and Taylor were just amazing. IMO, The song "Stone Cold Crazy" is what turned Lemmy, Metallica and Megadeath into speed demons. And as campy as Bohemian Rhapsody may seem to us now, there wasn't a person between 14-21 in the 70's that didn't go ape-shit when that song came on the radio. The promo video for Bohemian Rhapsody was a major influence on what was to become MTV. Can you imagine how Queen would have ruled if MTV came out in 1971 instead of 1981. And here is the best part - I dare anyone to attach a genre to them. What were they; Glam, Metal, Hard Rock, Pop, Top 40, Jazz Rock, Prog Rock.? Musically, they could cross genres without skipping a beat. Another One Bites The Dust (not one of my favorites) crossed into the dance scene without ever sounding like a sell-out song, (unlike Rod Stewart's Do You Think I Am Sexy). I can go on and on about Queen. Simply put, they were a band of 4 different songwriters and personalities that blended together to give us something amazing. Sorry, I didn't mean to rant.

I think lists are stupid and this list by Rolling Stone is as stupid as it gets. That list has nothing to do with musical immortals, it has to do with selling magazines. And yes, Pink Floyd not being on the list is ridiculous as is the omission of Alice Cooper. But maybe Rolling Stone can continue to preach objectivity.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 07:53am

I'm not willing to make Rolling Stone the scapegoat here. The voters are pretty diverse, including a lot of artists. And the voting was tallied by Ernst & Young, so it is likely a legit reflection of the voters will (unlike the Rock Hall vote LOL). And each person was only asked to pick 20 artists. That seems like that would leave it open to the possibility that there were a lot of #25's that simply never made it to anyone's list.

Posted by mel on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 08:11am

The bigger question is; what is the purpose of these lists?

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 08:57am

The purpose? History, education, selling magazines, food for debate.

Seriously, I bet lists like these make younger people want to find out more about these bands. That's a good thing.

Posted by mel on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 09:04am

l7VaUL htdioghrdeioh uerhuy h3oh iohgdfiogho isdfhio sdjhdf

Posted by flow1800 on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 10:35am

Where the heck is Pink Floyd??? They need to be on this list. Shame on RS!

Posted by toby on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 11:20am

Mel

As much as I would like to believe that, I have a feeling it only holds true for a small percentage of the younger listening audience. Kids who are really turned onto more than just their generation's music will look to explore on their own. They won't need some list as a springboard.

And in my opinion, this Immortals list is so far off that all it does is give a somewhat distorted view.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 11:40am

"Artists" like John Mayer and that prick from Coldplay.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 12:43pm

Gitarzan brought up an interesting point in relation to what is considered "immortal" when he mentioned Mozart. Truth be told, when you look at it, the classical composers of the past do resemble a certain area of rock, namely the indie scene. In some ways Brahms/Beethoven/Mozart, etc. are the equivalent of an act like the Velvet Underground, only their particular patron isn't Andy Warhol but rather the royal courts of Europe.

Mel - I flubbed when I mentioned NIN as not being worthy. What I was trying to say was that in 05 I did not believe they were top 100. The innovative use of the internet to promote "Year Zero" artistically + the sales end for "Ghosts I-IV" more than put them into the top 100.

Queen and P. Floyd - Yes to both. I didn't even realize Floyd had been left off the list. I'm not a major fan, but I definitely see where they should have been slotted in somewhere.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 18:50pm

Ok, here's one good one that has not been elected yet. RUSH!!!! I mean come on, Madonna was elected before Rush. Yeah...... right! Someone give me a good reason why Rush isnt in there!

Posted by Bobobrowns on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 19:26pm

Cheesecrop...that's a very good analogy! I was thinking about as time goes by, certain artists' contributions are lessened for some reason, even if it's just because people simply forget. Look at the 50's version of Elvis, for instance. People nowadays think of the white jumpsuit and having one concert be the mirror image of the next, etc..., but his contribution to Rock music was enormous in the 50's. A lot of legendary performers would've never been heard on mainstream radio if he hadn't bridged that gap. It wasn't that the songs were masterpieces, but essentially where they came from...anywhere from obscure country to R&B. He took the brunt of the criticism from the public and kept shoving it back in their faces, on national television to boot. Bono from U2 called his performance on The Milton Berle Show "The big bang of rock & roll". If you ever get a chance to watch it (youtube has it), you'll see one of the most defining moments in rock history...for 1956 it was unheard of!!

Music is a very powerful tool for cultural change, and those were events that constituted a major cultural overhaul to a degree that probably had never been witnessed before, and very few since. This is why I don't like the word "immortal" used so flippantly. These kinds of "explosions" just don't happen very often, and some people try to discredit those times like they never happened.

Of course, some people don't think that man went to the moon either...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 20:14pm

One thing about Rap/Hip-Hop...whether you like it or hate it (doesn't seem to be a middle ground here), it did change things. This list doesn't mention people who were the true pioneers of that genre, though. I think N.W.A. were about the first to bring "shock" value into it. Eminem as has a fair amount of success, but to suggest that he's one of the "immortals" is truly absurd, considering some of the names on that list. I like a little of it, and I really prefer the stuff that's truly original. I'm not so much into the anger part of it, though. There are more positive ways of getting a point across...

This is just one man's opinion...

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 07.22.08 @ 11:46am

Cheesecrop...you're not the only one who needs to proofread occasionally. "as has"??? Oh, brother!! I meant "has had". Understand, I type 100 words...a day!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 07.22.08 @ 11:49am

THE MIRACLES (as a GROUP) should have been inducted BEFORE at least 3/4th of the artists on this list. There have been many successful inducted artists in music history , but VERY FEW who can lay claim to being THE VANGUARD ACT OF AN ENTIRELY NEW MUSICAL GENRE !!! THE MIRACLES WERE THE GROUP THAT INTRODUCED THE WORLD TO THE "MOTOWN SOUND", long before THE SUPREMES, THE TEMPTATIONS, AND THE FOUR TOPS were even HEARD of !!! So, WHY are those artists inducted , while THE MIRACLES ARE NOT ? You want "influence" ? Go to Wikipedia,look up "THE MIRACLES" particularly the "cover versions" section , and just SEE just how many artists have covered their songs....from ALL different music genres.... They're probably the most influential non- inducted group EVER !!!,and , they WROTE OVER 90% OF THEIR OWN MATERIAL. (All of them, not just Smokey).I guarantee that few of the inducted "IMMORTALS" even come CLOSE !!! THE MIRACLES will be be recieving their long-overdue STAR on the HOLLYWOOD WALK OF FAME IN EARLY 2009...Maybe this will FINALLY cause the RRHOF to PAY ATTENTION.

Posted by Bill G. on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 00:03am

k, Eminem deserves to be on the list. He's probably the best RAPPER ever, that's not saying he's talented musically. But to rap, you have to rhyme well, and he does very cleverly. That being said, how is Queen not on the list, and Dr. Dre is? Cmon. Dr. Dre is the most worthless guest rapper of all time. And, Led Zeppelin is too low. They should be higher than 14. Way higher than 14. They should be like, 5. Rolling Stone magazine needs to stop making these stupid lists. No one gives a damn what Rolling Stone says anyways, because they keep fence hopping. Isn't Rolling Stone the magazine that gave the album "Led Zeppelin" a 2 star when it came out, and then it was ranked above some 5 star ones, on there "500 greatest albums ever made"?

Posted by Calzone on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 13:59pm

Good rapper? Yes. Best ever? Christ no. Get some Eric B. and Rakim or some Public Enemy or some Dizzee Rascal or something.

Rolling Stone mag are a hypocritical bunch of pr*cks, and sellout whores as well. I'm honestly surprised anyone is still listening to them. You don't think it was Nirvana's well-masked artistic brilliance that got Nevermind's rating go from its initial three-star rating changed to five-star, do you? (But to their credit, three stars is probably the right grade for that boring piece of pap.)

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 14:17pm

Liam, Liam... you're at it again. Quit trying to make everybody go Brit.

I've got to laugh about how the U.K. has tried to hijack rock from America. Recently I watched portions of a show called "Seven Ages of Rock". I say portions because I have had to get into it slowly to keep myself from laughing. The show opened in the mid-60's, and they couldn't do enough to hide 1950's America from the proceedings. They attempted to hide Elvis/Little Richard/Berry/Jerry Lee, and all the rest while pretending that they invented rock. Oh, I forgot, ROCK is different from rock & roll (LOL!!!). One of the biggest cons ever perpetrated.

I willingly admit that I do not agree w/ everything RS tosses in, and like many who see this list, they want to change it. What gets me is that you haven't even offered any vision of your own list. Instead I watch you attack Nirvana (& on another post, the Chili Peppers). Most likely it's because you inherently lack the ability to connect w/ rock in any real way, and like that show you feel the need to try to rewrite the past to suit it for yourself. All you're answers are perfectly crafted, as though we were reading an indie rock book instead of listening to a real person. I'm not going to say "get a life" or some such drivel. What I will say is this: Become a person and les of a fact machine, will you. Put some of your actual personality into this, and stop being fact-spouting Wonder Machine of Rock.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 15:28pm

whoa now, mel. an honest to goodness immortal list would not have zero names. it might have like, 10, but that's it. The Beatles are definatley for shiz immortal. No one will ever, nor could ever, forget about them. Same with Zeppelin, Stones, The Who, Elvis, people like that. And, to the having no queen or pink floyd, calm down silly fan boys. Queen and Pink Floyd will be remembered for a considerable amount of time, regardless of what these so called "Music Critics" have to say about it. NO one should listen to this magazine anyway, because they don't know shit. That's it.

Posted by Calzone on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 15:54pm

"Instead I watch you attack Nirvana (& on another post, the Chili Peppers). Most likely it's because you inherently lack the ability to connect w/ rock in any real way, and like that show you feel the need to try to rewrite the past to suit it for yourself."

Yeah, because aside from the hundreds of rock albums I do like, I mostly hate rock. The reason I detest Nirvana and the Red Hot Chili Peppers is because they have always struck me as deeply mediocre bands; Nirvana's *legacy* relying more on their being the final (yes, final) push for alternative rock to be accepted mainstream, and RHCP basically using their instrumental prowess as a distraction for their clearly sub-par song-writing capabilities. And yes, that's my opinion; feel free to argue against it.

Yes, I was wrong about RS giving it a five star review, but I was only getting it mixed up with an other album. However, I was right in that RS has contradicted its original opinion of the album by placing it at #17 in their terrible Greatest Albums list, quite evidently to do with its commercial success.

You tell me to become "les [sic] of a fact machine" when almost all my last comment was devoted to my opinion. Funny, that.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 16:00pm

If you hate rock music, Liam, then what the hell are you doing here? I do agree with you about RS magazine, but Nirvana deserves better treatment then they are getting for you. And about the RHCP, this isn't country music, dude, The lyrics don't need to be "inspirational and good". It's all about the music here man. And the Red Hot Chili Peppers deliver, so go complain the the "Future Homosexual Hall .com" At least you might get someone who agree with you. Cause here, we all love music.

Posted by Calzone on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 16:23pm

Does sarcasm not work with you or something?

I love music too, and I hate the RHCP. Do you know how opinions work?

Go and get Gang of Four's first few records. You'll be surprised at how shitty RHCP start sounding when you listen to them.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 16:30pm

Dude, i like the Gang of Four. I like the CHili Peppers too though. Go play some Blood Sugar Sex Magik, that whole album is great. I have to admit, everything after Californication kinda sucked, but before this crappy new stuff, the chili peppers were good. And, if you want to respect Nirvana, buy "Unplugged in New York" Because that album proves that they are more than just some crappy grunge band from Seattle, that proved that they were musicians, and could sound great live, without amps and crap.

Posted by Calzone on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 16:38pm

I'v bought and listened to both. They're both average, in my eyes.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 07.23.08 @ 17:35pm

Leon Russell? Nicky Hopkins? How soon they forget....King Crimson.

Posted by bluepno on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 07:34am

"so go complain the the "Future Homosexual Hall .com" At least you might get someone who agree with you."

LOL!! Sooo funny!!!!

Posted by Bebe on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 09:23am

Time for a break in music:

Yanks - Red Sox

3 game series in Fenway. Sweet!!!!

go Yanks!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 10:15am

I'm still having trouble justifying Roxy Music. If someone knows, please explain. Thanks!

Posted by Joe on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 16:01pm

I'm having trouble with loads, especially Gn'R.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 17:09pm

It does bring up an interesting point--what of the now-current music will be played hundreds of years from now, as Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Tsichiavkosky, et. al. are played now? Some classical music is very popular now; while some is all but forgotten.

WIth that, I could see a case for the Beatles, Bob Dylan, perhaps the Eagles, and a few others. But Guns n' Roses? Eminem? If anything, it is much too early to tell how their music will affect MODERN music history, much less how it will be in the year 2208.

Posted by Joe on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 08:21am

I'm still having trouble justifying Roxy Music. If someone knows, please explain. Thanks! (joe)

It might have to do with the fact that performers across the board including David Bowie cite Bryan Ferry and company as a major influence.

Personally, I think they were a great band that could not be pigeon-holed by any specific genre.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 08:26am

None of this stuff is going to be remembered in 2208. I brought it up earlier that the kids down the line might laugh at what we thought was great. The proof can be found in listening to 50's rock as compared to today. The connections are almost all gone, and in another couple years I'm willing to bet the connections to the 60's will have faded badly as well. Anybody turning sweet sixteen in 2020 will have been born the year this "immortal" list came out.

This list is RS's "state of rock as we think it is" for that moment of time. The top 20 is all 50's/60's, w/2 concessions to the 70's. The 1st 80's act is at 22, 1st 90's is at 27. The interesing parts are what lay outside the top 30. RS is fighting a rear guard action against encroaching youth, w/ the majority of the top 75 being 50's-70's. The 50's-70's acts who show up between #50 & #75 represent the desperate attempt to plug up a dam w/ a finger. What happens when the kids of today start feeling nostalgic in 2020 for MCR/Fall Out Boy, etc.? By that point will this list have been revised to move some 80's & 90's folks up the ladder? There are a lot of kids out there today, and nostalgic feelings will still be the same in 2020 as they are today. Will the kids of today sweep away everything in 2020, while the kids of that moment cry that their own bands are not heard?

You will perhaps reecall in the film "Interview w/ the Vampire" it is noted that the vampires stay trapped in their own mental time frame while the world keeps moving forward. The only way to stay alert is to stay aboveground in essence. This list, outside the top 30, is the mental fortification/complaint list of a vampire at the moment it has begun to really drift out of touch w/ the passing universe.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 09:45am

Cheesecrop said: "What happens when the kids of today start feeling nostalgic in 2020 for MCR/Fall Out Boy, etc.? By that point will this list have been revised to move some 80's & 90's folks up the ladder? There are a lot of kids out there today, and nostalgic feelings will still be the same in 2020 as they are today. Will the kids of today sweep away everything in 2020, while the kids of that moment cry that their own bands are not heard?"

I think the point of the list isn't neccessarily to cater to whatever the "youth" of the day happens to think is relevant. It's to highlight the artists that have the most signifigance for ALL time not just the PRESENT time. If they do what you're suggesting then that would be Casey Kasemizing the list to make it like a longer term version of Billboard's Hot 100 with newer stuff higher up and older stuff that peaked in popularity falling down and off. That would do a disservice to the intended purpose of the list which is to show the artists who've made the most impact over time-not just in perpetuating but developing rock as well.

Posted by classicrocker on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 11:18am

Didn't notice that the Floyd wasn't on the list...perhaps the rumors of RS's prog bias aren't unfounded?

Posted by Casper on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 16:42pm

The last thing I wish to do is "Casey Kasemize" a list in any manner. Rock & Roll itself has, and will always have, a built-in Kasem complex to itself. If you wish to use the classical music frame of reference, anything considered immortal would, by some implication, have to be finished. Rock is far from finished. Let me use a different example. I have an old videotape from 99 that featured the 100 top baseball players according to the Sporting News. At the time they had Barry Bonds listed at 37, I believe, and the commentary(pre-steroid accusation) noted that when he was finished his career he'd probably be in the top 10. The list in question is meant to rank him for the century, yet it acknowledges his mobility, due to his career not being over. Later on, Bob Costas (host) notes that the list is fluid, and that the names could change, but that he couldn't picture anyone but Babe Ruth at the top. Think about the contradictions in listing the top 100 players of the 20th century, yet acknowledging the list could change throughout the 21st. I'm saying the same thing is possible here.

Let me ask this: since you post under "classicrocker", and I do believe the list is fluid, what do you think of Dylan's chances of surpassing the Beatles? Would there ever be a time he surpassed them? After all, this list was put together before his album "Modern Times" came out. I know I've argued about Nirvana/NIN/Radiohead, but they aren't the only ones still active here. Is Dylan's last album enough to put him over the top? How bout' the Stones? Has U2 or Springsteen ade the top 20, in your mind (or anyone's out there, for that matter)?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 18:12pm

It's a horrendous list; it really is the more I look at it.

Bob Marley #11???!!!!! Most of what he did wasn't really rock in the traditional sense. Stevie Wonder has no business in the top 30. Neither does Sam Cooke or Ray Charles. Velvet Underground should be up to around 12 and The Who should be at least 10 notches higher. The Doors and CCR should be top 25 and the other prog stuff like Floyd, Traffic, ELP, King Crimson should be at least 50. As well as Brian Eno/Robert Fripp.

Posted by classicrocker on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 18:14pm

Cheesecrop:

I don't think Dylan could surpass The Beatles unless he has some more top 10 songs like his heyday in the 60's. The college kids today aren't really into him. The only stuff from the 60's you hear on college radio today really is The Velvet Underground and Love.

The Stones-no way. They are the butt of too many Jay Leno jokes.

U2's got a chance of making the top 15 and Springsteen will probably stay about where he is....

Posted by classicrocker on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 18:24pm

The Kinks are way too low, and U2 are too high (i.e. included on the list).

RS has really gone and stereotyped itself with it's newer group picks. Radiohead? Check. NIN? Check. Eminem? Check....

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 18:29pm

That has to be one of the worst lists I've ever seen. I mean, Madonna? that high up? Isn't part of the criteria being able to sing?

And this isn't the first time Rolling Stone Magazine has shafted Pink Floyd. I have no more respect for Rolling Stone. I thought they knew what they were talking about!!

Posted by That Guy on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 18:31pm

How is Bob Dylan ahead of Elvis and The Rolling Stones? And how are Prince and Nirvana ahead of Johnny Cash. I'm getting tired of RS overrating Bob Dylan, Nirvana, and The Beatles (Although they actually deserve it).

And where is Pink Floyd?

Posted by Slinky on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 18:40pm

With Rolling Stone, they always seem to want to add the "band du jour" (who's popular now or in the recent past) to most of their lists. When speaking of Nirvana, I recently saw a video of "She's Lost Control" by Joy Division. I immediately thought of "All Apologies" by Nirvana. Now, Joy Division didn't have a very long career, but I think they are more influential than Nirvana, yet they aren't on the list. If you listen to Joy Division, they really started something, people hadn't heard anything quite like it, and it bridged the gap between punk and New Wave...IMO. Nirvana was more of an exclaimation point to the whole grunge thing.

Once again, just one man's observation...feel free to comment.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 18:51pm

By the way, can someone explain to me what exactly is so great about Stevie Wonder?

Posted by That Guy on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 19:55pm

To all of you geniuses who are blaming this list on "Rolling Stone": only 20% of the voters have ties to the magazine.

Posted by fact check on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 20:52pm

If you think Rolling Stone doesn't have the final say in these matters or what they print, all I have to say is "think again!!!"

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 21:01pm

"Immortal" is such a wrong word. it makes me laugh.

Posted by Shit Face on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 21:53pm

So here's a break on the whole immortals argument. We're all music enthusiasts here, so i just have a question. Do you think folk rock, like the eagles and bob dylan, and all those guys, will be the most poplular genre next decade, and alternative will finally die down? Cause, let's look at history, The most popular genre of the nineties: Alternative. Underground genre of the eighties: Alternative. Most popular genre of the eighties: New Wave. Underground genre of the 70's: New Wave. And so, Most popular genre of the 00's: Alternative. Underground genre of the 00's: Folk Rock. So, if history repeats itself, won't folk be the most popular next decade? Just a guess. Reply back, want to see your opinions

Posted by Calzone on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 12:26pm

I can't say it would surprise me...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 12:39pm

Calzone - I have to disagree with your analysis of the 80's. The only way you can measure most popular is sales and I think the Hair Metal/Hard Rock scene of the 80's outsold just about all other genres.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 15:26pm

Dameon...I think if you're throwing Culture Club, Duran Duran, the Eurythmics, Tears for Fears, Depeche Mode, etc...into that New Wave mix, you're talking a whole lot of record sales. I don't know that anyone kept track of those sub-genres sales totals, but it could've been pretty much of a push.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 16:22pm

You really think alternative is THE sound of today? Interesting. I'd actually like to know where you're coming from here. The old Pearl Jam sound is simply modern commercial hard rock these days. Are you referring to the Seether's & Breaking Benjamin's of the world? For all the derision it has received, Emo is at least different from this. I'm probably more inclined to accept 80's metal in the popularity column.

This may sound way out, but my vision of the next wave of the future is a mix of 80's metal and 90's electronica - picture if you can Yngwie Malmsteen & the Chemical Bros. (I hope that image hasn't given you nightmares)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 19:35pm

Not at all Gitar - when discussing popularity, the only measuring stick is sales and concert attendance. If you look at the actual numbers, I think you will find that the Hair Band/Hard Rock scene wins decisively in these two categories.

That means nothing to me when discussing immortal bands. I am certainly not going to put Twisted Sister in the same company as Dylan and the Beatles. I was just commenting on Calzones analysis of New Wave being the dominant genre.

Understand that I actually hate the pigeonholing of bands into these little groups. Grunge was nothing more than Hard Rock. I was living and breathing the punk scene in Alaphbet City in Manhattan in the mid 70's and enjoyed what I thought was Punk/New Wave. It took Liam and Shawn to clearly explain to me the post-punk scene and how it is different. I thought it was all the same. At least that is how the clubs in Manhattan treated it.

The bands I played in during the 70's and early 80's were influenced by Aerosmith, Led Zep, ALice Cooper and the Ramones. Plus we added a bit of Sweet, Queen and Mott The Hoople into the mix. Obviously it didn't work out for us. It is probably why I will scream until I am blue in tyhe face about the NY Dolls, Alice Cooper, Cheap Trick and The Stooges. It is a travesty that these three bands are not in the Hall, because in my opinion, they should all be on the immortal list.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 22:25pm

Ooops - it seems that I forgot how to count. That would be four bands. And I will throw ELP and King Crimson and Procul harum into this mix.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 22:28pm

Gitar

I'm with Dameon on the hair/metal/rock bands ruling the charts/sales/attendance in the 80's. You've got Motley Crue, Def Leppard, Ratt, Quiet Riot, Poison, Whitesnake, Van Halen,Twisted Sister, Bon Jovi. Not to mention all the lesser bands that even were popular like White Lion, Winger, Enuff Znuff, Sleez Breeze, Giufarri and of course the band that I have inducted into my own peronsal HOF (since no one else will!! Ha! :) Danger Danger!!!!!!!!

Posted by dano on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 22:52pm

It'd be hard to call today's Mainstream Rock "alternative" for reasons besides it's not really alternative, but mainstream. It sounds more like they're trying to be like Metallica. Doesn't really have the same feel as Pearl Jam or Nirvana.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 23:15pm

No, it doesn't have the same feel as Nirvana or Pearl Jam, or Smashing Pumpkins, or R.E.M, or any of those guys. But, it's the same style, taken after these guys. And Coldplay, this decade's megastars, are basically just taking after Radiohead. So, everything this decade has done, is influenced on 90's alternative rock. So i don't know how else to describe this decade's music, other than alternative. And, alternative was never meant to be a genre, is was just a way to describe the movement that was coming in the late eighties that wasn't hair metal, or New wave, so they had to describe it simply as alternative. But once it hit the mainstream, in the 90's, it became a genre. So that's how i'm going to describe it. But, back to my real question, Do you think that folk rock will be the most popular genre next decade? please respond, want to see opinions.

Posted by Calzone on Monday, 07.28.08 @ 07:13am

This may sound way out, but my vision of the next wave of the future is a mix of 80's metal and 90's electronica - picture if you can Yngwie Malmsteen & the Chemical Bros. (I hope that image hasn't given you nightmares)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 19:35pm

THAT DOES give my nightmares. God help us all.

Posted by The Chief on Monday, 07.28.08 @ 13:45pm

Ooops - it seems that I forgot how to count. That would be four bands. And I will throw ELP and King Crimson and Procul harum into this mix.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 22:28pm

It's PROCOL HARUM btw ;)

Posted by The Chief on Monday, 07.28.08 @ 13:50pm

Thanks for the correction teacher. I also forgot to capitalize the "H". Shame on me!

I have no idea what will be the next dominant genre. But then I just don't care anymore. Although I still like to touch base every now and then with the new stuff that is coming out, at this point in my life, I have pretty much accepted the fact that when I want to sit back and relax, I am going to put on the music that I know and love. Their are 5 discs in my CD player right now: The NY Dolls, Lovin Spoonful, Cheap Trick, Golden Earring and The Kinks. I guess I am old.

FYI -Moontan by Golden Earring is a very under-rated album. Radar Love is not even the best song on the LP. Candy's Going Bad and Vanilla Queen are great tracks.

I must admit that except for ELP's music, I prefer hard-driven electric guitar music.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 07.28.08 @ 16:05pm

Well, I'm a little confused as to what constitutes popular. I may be wrong, but I didn't think Alternative was as popular as Adult Contemporary, Country, or R&B/Rap.

I think folk rock is trying to manifest itself now in the likes of Colbie Caillat, John Mayer, etc. They haven't quite nailed it down yet, so maybe it will be. But if it does, it means Mayer and Caillat will have been seen as major influences upon the movement. Oy vey.

Posted by Philip on Monday, 07.28.08 @ 16:53pm

What no Ludicris? ..That's ludicrous

I predict in 25 years he'll be just as influential and popular as some of these turkeys and mre than some.

Tells you how good the Rolling Stones opinion is.

Help find me a life!

Posted by laz on Friday, 08.1.08 @ 14:12pm

dudee, where's Bon Jovi?

Posted by Jessie on Tuesday, 08.5.08 @ 08:19am

Where they deserve to be. That is, not on this list.

Posted by The_Claw on Tuesday, 08.5.08 @ 08:42am

oh yah, and madonna and prince deserve to be there? dumbass.

Posted by jessie on Tuesday, 08.5.08 @ 11:28am

I see no problem with Prince on that list. He is abso f'n lutely one of the great musicians of the last 50 years. He has traveled through every musical genre and always gave us something refreshing to listen to.

Madonna - who cares? I don't!

Bon Jovi should not be on some list for immortals! They are not even in the top 5 bands of their genre (of course that is assuming you are placing B.J. in the Hard Rock genre):

Def Leppard
Motley Crue
Tesla
Guns And Roses
Hanoi Rocks (My guilty pleasure)

Let's accept Bon Jovi for what they were and are. A well rehearsed RnR band who knew what their audience was and what they liked. They made their fans happy, and there is nothing wrong with that. They broke no new ground! They didn't even reinvent an older genre. They were excellent students of the trends and did nothing to mess that up. They inspired many teenagers and everyone had a good time.

Like I said, I am not a hater. I actually own their first 3 albums - I stopped after listening to SWW.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 08.5.08 @ 12:21pm

"oh yah, and madonna and prince deserve to be there?"

Yep. I'd even say, more than most other acts from the 80s.

Posted by The_Claw on Tuesday, 08.5.08 @ 12:57pm

hunnie, the only problem with your comment are there are far too many past tensed verbs...they're still doing it man. yah maybe not on this list but i believe 100% that they should be inducted they are a class act, like no other. And their live show is an experience worth a lifetime. im sick of all the people saying that they had their day and they are not worthy they are the most worthy deserving boys ever! i am only 16 but i know my music. and the fact that you stopped listening after their most successful album dumfounds me. but its all good, sorry i called you s dumbass claw, i was a little heated.

Posted by jessie on Tuesday, 08.5.08 @ 21:38pm

Man - I wish I was 16 again! And by the way, SWW was not their best album, it was just their most popular album. In my opinion, 7800 Faranheit was a far superior recording, both musically and lyrically. And I have seen BJ live - they do play for their fans. There can be no disputing that fact. But trust me, if their show was an experience worth a lifetime, then you missed a thousand other lifetimes by missing out on so many other great bands that were the big influences behind BJ.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 08.6.08 @ 08:38am

well ive only been around for so long, i havent gotten a chance to see the greats of the oldies. i have seen, clapton, boston, styx, police,bruce and the e street band, metallica, and yah they all bloww you away, but its like they dont have a connection with fans, its like just another concert, but for me anyway bon jovi, is just an amazing experience, maybe not a wholee lifetime but maybe a half one! I dont know maybe im just some chick that doesent know what im talking about, but i love them! i didnt say best album, i just said most successful, its kind of they really got on their feet in the music world you know? in my opinion, "this left feel right" is their best. but it's all good man.

Posted by jessie on Wednesday, 08.6.08 @ 08:55am

Jessie - enjoy them with all your heart. If they have touched your soul, then keep them forever. And believe me, you are not just some chick. You love music and that is what will keep the spirit of youth alive. So don't just be some any chick. Be the one that makes all the little boys close their eyes a little harder and wish a little stronger. Then go out there and rule the world. Us old people keep f*cking it up anyway; someone has got to fix our mess.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 08.6.08 @ 11:59am

Dameon, thank you! you are such a sweet guy. Most "older" people think the youth is pretty much composed of dumbasses, the fact that you said that means a lot, and i will continue to love them, and music all together. thank you for your kind words. i will not be some chick, i will be a kickass chick! promise! and I know i keep talking about bon jovi but, they have a song called "just older" and it says your not "old" just "older" and thats what you are, just older. Probably wiser,and more intelligent, and i hope to be as wise and smart as you one day! and once again thanks man!

Posted by jessie on Wednesday, 08.6.08 @ 12:16pm

I was young once too. I ruled NYC streets and now it is your turn. I just hope to God you are all smarter than we were.

Hey Liam - you are still young. Same goes for you dude.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 08.6.08 @ 14:18pm

I think if you're younger you should take advantage of the resources available to you and check out artists from the "bygone" era of Rock & Roll...don't get stuck on any one artist. I'm a firm believer of "you can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been".

As an example, Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, one of the foremost opera singers ever was asked who she thought was the greatest singing voice ever. She bluntly replied, "That's easy...Elvis Presley." Now why would a singer of her stature say that? Take a trip back to the 50's and listen. You may not agree with her, but you'll have an understanding of what made him what he was. Do that with a lot of artists from a lot of eras. Listen to songs that made a generation. You'll have fun in the process. Also, rent the 5 DVD set of "The History Of Rock & Roll", covers everything from the beginning to rap/hip-hop, and the people who were interviewed read like a who's who of Rock music...great stuff.

I think Dameon and I have some things in common...sounds like we both either played in or frequented our fair share of smoky bars, small venues, and "interesting" nightclubs!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 08.6.08 @ 19:23pm

I still am!

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 08.6.08 @ 21:58pm

thats really great advice gitarzan, i mean i think im so persistant on bon jovi, because i just recently went to their concerts last month, and i suppose im still on a post-concert high...if that makes sence, they're like all i listen to now. but i know what you mean.they're certainly not the only great band out there. i lieke you "older' guys here, things you say sound so wise and smart, i mean im still in my i just wanna do the stupidest meaningless shit ever just cause im still a kid, but i wouldnt mind wising up like ya'll a little bit.

Posted by jessie on Wednesday, 08.6.08 @ 22:02pm

These lists drive me insane. I have so much to say about it that I want to explode. They are too diverse. Black Sabbath are rock immortals and would be at the top of that list. The Sex Pistol are punk immortals and would top that list, maybe. But it is my opinion that the Sex Pistols are borderline musicians at best and a flash in the pan act whereas Black Sabbath are very talented and produced one great album after another. Black Sabbath 85 on the list and the Sex Pistols 58, that is crazy. Frank Zappa, he is supposed to be this great composer but how many people own his cd's and pop them in and listen. His music is some bizarre comedy music, to me it is unlistenable. Bob Dylan #2. Come on it's time to put down the beads and take the flower power sticker off your car. Bob Dylan is a poet, he sucks as a musician and is probably the worst singer ever! What is the big deal about Bob Dylan that was like 100 years ago. Their are so many bands and artists on this list that don't even know what rock and roll is, Aretha Franklin, Madonna, Hank Williams are you kidding.

Posted by Space Trucker on Wednesday, 08.6.08 @ 23:51pm

Dameon...I'm hip to that...lol!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 07:08am

A big ten-four to the Truckin Man... I hear you on Dylan. Bobby D at #2 over Presley at #3 or even the Stones at #4 is a bit out there to me. Earlier on this page I tried to gauge if anyone thought Dylan could top the Beatles, considering he was still producing new work. It was out of interest in regards to the list being fluid in terms of movement. You say you've a lot to say in regards to the list. Let's hear it. You've no room for a full 100, but just list a few you might move around. That goes for anybody just discovering this site and this particular page of postings as well.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 08.7.08 @ 16:19pm

Exactly how is dylan ahead of elvis and the stones?!

Posted by the on Friday, 08.8.08 @ 14:09pm

Okay Cheesecrop I'm going to really shake this list up and probably piss a lot of people off.

As I said in a post on RRHOF Criteria, Rock and Roll is guitar driven with a few exceptions Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elton John (I think) and maybe a few others. Below is who is not in my Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Aretha Franklin
James Brown
Marvin Gaye
Ray Charles
Bob Marley
Otis Redding
Fats Domino
Johnny Cash
Madonna
Micheal Jackson
Simon and Garfunkel
Sly and the Family Stone
Parliment
Louis Jordan (Who?)
Joni Mitchell
Etta James
Al Green
The Temptations
Jackie Wilson
Carl Perkins
Hank Williams
The Shirelles
The Four Tops
The Drifters
James Taylor
Ricky Nelson
Martha and the Vandells
Diana Ross

I think the founders of the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame got in way over their heads when they started this and they really should change the name to the Music Hall of Fame because they don't seem to have a clue what rock and roll is. But I know we do.

Give The Power Back To The PEOPLE!

C-YA
SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Friday, 08.8.08 @ 18:12pm

Well, now you went and done it. The page on voting statistics was interesting, but possibly the worst thing you could have done was to put up who posted the most. You may find yourself inundated w/ fanboys (and girls), spammers of all sorts, and anyone who simply falls in the general idiot category.

Like the #'s in general, though. Who would have thought... Senses Fail??!!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 08.10.08 @ 05:00am

The Digital Dream Door website lists eligible artists for the Rock Hall into 10 categories.

QUALIFICATIONS (on a scale of 1-10)

1 - Non-existant
2 - Mostly Insignificant
3 - Recognizable, But Minor Artist
4 - Modest Accomplishments
5 - Worth Examining, But Will Often Fall Short
6 - Strong Case To Be Made
7 - Solid Choice
8 - Unquestioned Credentials
9 - Dominant Artist
10 - The Immortals


Posted by Roy on Thursday, 08.14.08 @ 18:23pm
--------------------------------------------------

I took the liberty of moving this over to the "Immortals" section.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 05:58am

I just took a quick look at this site. Here are some observations:

On the guitarist list, where is Mick Ralphs from Mott and Bad Company, and Jake E. Lee from OZZY and Badlands? Jonny Marr should be rated much higher.

Drummer List: Peart and Bonham are not in Carl Palmer's league. And Keith Moon was a much better drummer that Bonham.

Bass Guitarist. With all due respect to Jamerson, there is no way in this or any life that he tops Entwistle.

Keyboardists: Ray Manzarek needs to be dropped down big time on this list.

Vocalists: At least they got number one right. There will never be another Freddie Mercury again. Daltrey needs to be moved into the top 10 and Geoff Tate into the top 5. (For some reason, they only have Freddie as #5 on greatest frontmen - he should be number 1 there as well.

Greatest Rock Vocal Performances: They definitely got the top 4 correct.

Greatest Rock Songwriters: Townsend and Ray Davies need to be in the top 5.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 06:42am

Drummer List: Peart and Bonham are not in Carl Palmer's league. And Keith Moon was a much better drummer that Bonham.

Bass Guitarist. With all due respect to Jamerson, there is no way in this or any life that he tops Entwistle.

Ar far as drummers go Hal Blaine is the # 1..
in a leauge of his own.. Next rock drummer is Charlie Watts.. Keith is cool #3


Jamerson is as hot as Entwistle.. Maybe even hotter.. Both good no doubt..

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 06:56am

With all due respect mrxyz - I do love Hal Blaine, but Charlie Watts is definitely not in the top 5. And Carl Palmer still tops my list. If you are really interested in the actuality of a drummer, check out Ringo. People don't realize how good of a drummer he really is.

As for the Most Influential Artist list: Can someone please explain to me how the Who is not in the top 10?

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 07:05am

I've always been a big Jaco Pastorius fan. With bands, I look at how good the drummer and bass player interact, so it's hard for me to say. Some very talented people have been brought up.

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 07:14am

With all due respect mrxyz - I do love Hal Blaine, but Charlie Watts is definitely not in the top 5. And Carl Palmer still tops my list. If you are really interested in the actuality of a drummer, check out Ringo. People don't realize how good of a drummer he really is.

As for the Most Influential Artist list: Can someone please explain to me how the Who is not in the top 10?

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 07:05am


LOL I like Ringo the "Luckest Drummer in the WORLD"
Having said that.. Charlie Watts and Hal Blaine have the best timming.. It is not how much you lay down it is where you lay it down...

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 07:14am

It is not always timing, especially when you are doing music that is past a normal 4/4 beat.

The perfect example of this is Keith Moon and I will bring Gitar's statement of interaction between the drummer and bass guitarist. Bill Wyman is a Bass Player, not a guitarist so what Watts did had more to do with being synchronized with Watts the backbeat. And we also must take into account that the Stones had a second guitarist. What Keith Moon did was allow the fullness of Townsends ideas to come to fruitation while maintaining the backbeat. If you look at footage of the Who live, you will see Townsend and Entwhistle constantly looking at Moon and visa versa. It was like an orchestra with three instruments. Now we move to Carl Palmer and the enormous complexity of ELP's music. What he had to do with the backbeat was bring it to a whole different level.

Some musicians have cited Ward and Butler from Black Sabbath as the greatest rythem section in all of Rock. They were a great tandum.

Like I said, all respect to Blaine and Watts, but they are not, IMO, the drummers that Moon and Palmer are.

My Pop's who hated RnR and was a big Gene Kruppa and Buddy Rich fan would actually ask me to play Moon and Palmer for him. He had great respect for ELP and although he hated the Who, he loved to hear Moon play. Many musicians from the 60's all the way to present day have cited Keith Moon as a genius on drums. One of the Gallagher Bros from Oasis has been quoted as calling Moon the Hendrix of drummers. That says a lot.

As for Ringo; the Beatles couldn't exist without him. There is a video of Hello/Goodbye out there somewhere. Check out his drumming.

I wish someone will explain to me the importance of The Doors. I still don't see it except in the context of Morrison's antics. Although, The End is one of the great songs of all time. What did Lester Bangs call them; a bunch of egotistical drunks or something like that?

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 08:26am

Like I said, all respect to Blaine and Watts, but they are not, IMO, the drummers that Moon and Palmer are.

As for Ringo; the Beatles couldn't exist without him. There is a video of Hello/Goodbye out there somewhere. Check out his drumming.


I would agree Blanie and Watts are not Palmer.Plamer is great but no Watts or Blaine..

Ringo is the Beatles drummer for the most part.. The Beatles would not of sounded like they did ith out Ringo ..He did a great job.. I would put him in the top 20 maybe even top 10...That is why he is the Luckiest drummer in the world.. I did find it funny that Payboy named him jazz drummer of the year a long time ago lol ya got to love the HYPE...!!
Blaine and Watts have the pocket and their kick work there is no better...The Best rock stuff out there in my opinion . Blaine is the "ROCK DRUMMER" with over 20,000 recorded and released songs.. that is a fact !!!

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 08:50am

I would never discount Watts or Blaine on any greatest list. Musical opinions are all subjective and I would rank both of them very high; but I will always rank Palmer and Moon as 1 & 2.

Personally, I love Psychedelic Percussion. It was a great piece of work. One of the best.

Here is the thing with Blaine - out of all these drummers, he is the one who has had a chance to work with so many artists. He was never confined for any long period of time to just one type of music. He is definitely the greatest session drummer of all time. (The Beach Boys wouldn't have been squat without him in the studio half the time.) So I think this freed him up a bit to do so many different things.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 09:10am

Here is the thing with Blaine - out of all these drummers, he is the one who has had a chance to work with so many artists. He was never confined for any long period of time to just one type of music. He is definitely the greatest session drummer of all time. (The Beach Boys wouldn't have been squat without him in the studio half the time.) So I think this freed him up a bit to do so many different things.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 09:10am

The reason he is the best session drummer of all time is becauce he is the best drummer of all time lol When your going for "GOLD" you take no chances.. that is why it is called the music "BUSINESS"

HE IS ON MORE STUFF THAN HE EVER WOULD LET ON IN PRINT...that is a FACT lol

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 09:22am

I got it mrxyz!

but he is still not better than Moon or Palmer ;-) And on this, I won't budge.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 09:44am

got it mrxyz!

but he is still not better than Moon or Palmer ;-) And on this, I won't budge.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 09:44am


I like MOON a great drummer one of the best and a fun guy...
It all depends on what you think the best is..
Moon had one style for the most part and did it perfect.. I can't see him doing Country ,Jazz Hendrix , Beach Boys , Sam Cook .... in one day and sound different and perfect in each session . Doing 1 - 2 takes and bye see ya later can you...?

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 09:52am

Agreed mrxyz. But the list I commented on was "Greatest Rock Drummers", not "Most Skilled Drummer".

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 10:34am

Someone above inquired as to the importance of the Doors while denigrating them as "egotistical drunks" (a term you could apply to at least half the Hall )

"The Doors were never part of any movement. Indeed, during an era of very high fliers, their visionary trajectory sought an orbit positioned well outside of the rock norm. Their journey was driven by a unique group vision and a determination to push the envelope of poetry, spirituality, intellect and psycho-sexual exploration in popular music as far as possible." -classicbands.com

As for the drummers, Carl Palmer will always be my pick as #1 for his unsurpassed technical ability as well as his versatility in terms of musical styles.....

Posted by classicrocker on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 11:01am

Agreed mrxyz. But the list I commented on was "Greatest Rock Drummers", not "Most Skilled Drummer".

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 10:34am

lol Well with 20,000 recorded and release songs with God only know how many gold hits ,the most hits of all drummer and most skilled..what make them the greatest Hollywood hype? If you are Elvis, Sinatra, Lennon, Denver, Diamond, Sam Cook, Grass Roots , Byrds , Hendrix, Bufflo Spring Fields, Beach Boys, Fith Dimension, Donavan,Carpintors, Mama and Papas, Monkeys, Diana Ross ,Phill Spector, George Harrison,Ray Charles, Jan and Dean, Dick Dale,Streistand ,Herb Albert.. Paul Reeve and the Raiders, Jonny Rivers Associations ,Roy Oberson ,Cystrials, Cohen,gee about a 100 more lol What makes the greatest..??I think all of these bands /musicians think he is the greatest!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 11:34am

CR - I respect your opinion on the Doors and I am sure most people agree with you, but I agree with Lester Bangs. "The End" & "Alabama Song"are the only songs I will play by them, ever!

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 12:18pm

I love the Doors
Can't think of a song I do not enjoy.. Must be 1 I don't like but skips my mind

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 12:27pm

About the only thing I can say about Hal Blaine is...Is there anyone he HASN'T played with (LOL)!! When I think of bands, I usually do think of the drum/bass interaction. I mean, Fleetwood Mac wouldn't exist without Mick Fleetwood AND John McVie...they're definitely one of the best backbeats around, and they're very basic. I compare Keith Moon to Ginger Baker in style...both incredible drummers. Another drummer I've been impressed by is Terry Bozzio, especially with Jeff Beck.

Outside of Entwistle (who always dazzled me when I watched him, even though I'm not the biggest Who fan in the world), a lot of the great bass players are soloists themselves (people like Stanley Clarke, Louis Johnson, etc...).

Anyway, that's why I think of rhythm sections as one entity (well, usually...).

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 19:54pm

When I think of bands, I usually do think of the drum/bass interaction. I mean,

I think of the bass and drums locked all the time when I hear the music..

Watts and Wynman were great .. Blaines kick is what hold most of the bands together..
Some one got to hold it..LOL

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 20:17pm

mrxyz...wasn't Tommy Tedesco a member of the "Wrecking Crew" too? It seems I heard that he was somewhere. As far as playing sessions, he was to guitar what Hal Blaine is/was to drums...a really great player who adapted to just about everything!

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 20:19pm

Whoa Now!

I try not to get too caught up these "who is the best at a certain instrument" lists but they are fun and being a drummer (amateur at best) I felt compelled to chime in.

As soon as I saw Neil Peart is not in Carl Palmers league I dropped my sticks and fell off my drum stool...LOL. Come on Carl Palmer is a top Rock Drummer no doubt but “not in his league” what is his league? He does not stand in a league all his own that is ridiculous.

I believe you have to have levels of drummers. I know this defeats the whole idea of who is the best which to me is a silly conversation anyway so I would like to offer groups or levels of Rock Drummers.

Group A: Best of the Best for technical ability, diversity in style and equipment (can you image Charlie Watts sitting at Neil Peart’s kit) in no particular order:

Carl Palmer
Neil Peart
Greg Bissonette
Terry Bozzio

Group B: Rock Solid, hard hitters and not that technical in no particular order:

John Bonham
Keith Moon
Ginger Baker
Tommy Aldridge
Don Brewer

Group C: Good time keepers, Got in with the right bunch of fellows.

Ringo Starr
Charlie Watts
Mick Fleetwood
Nick Mason

John Entwistle kept time for The Who not Keith Moon, he was all over the place. The reason Townsend and Entwistle were looking at him all the time is because they were wondering when he was going to fall off his drum stool…LOL.

SpaceTrucker

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 22:01pm

(can you image Charlie Watts sitting at Neil Peart’s kit) in no particular order:


I don't think Watts needs IT.. He seem to do fine with his 4 pc.. !!!
ya should hear him in his jazz group...

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 22:36pm

mrxyz...wasn't Tommy Tedesco a member of the "Wrecking Crew" too? It seems I heard that he was somewhere. As far as playing sessions, he was to guitar what Hal Blaine is/was to drums...a really great player who adapted to just about everything!

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 20:19pm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes he is a wrecking crew.. Beside Guitar he plays other strings ya should hear him on the sitar...

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 22:45pm

Hal was just inducted to the Hollywood rock walk..of fame
As you know Jim Fuller of the Surfaris is also there .. The "Godfather of Surf Guitar"..
Seems some folks know the real players PS don't worry !!__ King Dick is there also LOL

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 22:55pm

The Digital Dream Door website lists eligible artists for the Rock Hall into 10 categories.

QUALIFICATIONS (on a scale of 1-10)

1 - Non-existant
2 - Mostly Insignificant
3 - Recognizable, But Minor Artist
4 - Modest Accomplishments
5 - Worth Examining, But Will Often Fall Short
6 - Strong Case To Be Made
7 - Solid Choice
8 - Unquestioned Credentials
9 - Dominant Artist
10 - The Immortals

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 06:11am

Another top notch drummer I thought of is Nigel Olsson, who played with Uriah Heap briefly and played with Elton John during his incredible run in the 70's. From what I understand he rejoined John some time ago. He also tried a cereer as a singer, but didn't have much commercial success.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 10:25am

Your right mrxyz, Charlie Watts does fine on his four piece kit and thats it, he just does fine. He is a great time keeper with a ledgendary band.

I don't care about Jazz this is supposed to be the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Future ROCK Hall, are you telling me jazz is now rock and roll? Then we better start inducting jazz drummers, country drummers, big band drummers, rap drummers, oh ya they don't actually play their instruments.

I think a lot of people (not you XYZ) that paticipate on these forums don't have a clue what Rock and Roll is, Back Street Boys, Mariah Carey, 50 Cent come on, that is not Rock and Roll! I've asked for your definitions of Rock and Roll but only got one response from Dameon, anyone else care to chime in.

SpaceTrucker

"Long Live Rock"
The Who

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 11:41am

Rock & Roll is a melting pot of nearly all modern day music, only with a harder edge (and more volume, in most cases). It is probably the first genre to actually have what we call "attitude", and probably runs the gamit of emotions more than all other forms of music COMBINED!

There, ST...that's pretty much how I'd defne it.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 12:20pm

Left the "b" out of "gambit"...oh, well...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 12:23pm

Your right mrxyz, Charlie Watts does fine on his four piece kit and thats it, he just does fine. He is a great time keeper with a ledgendary band.

I don't care about Jazz this is supposed to be the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Future ROCK Hall, are you telling me jazz is now rock and roll? Then we better start inducting jazz drummers, country drummers, big band drummers, rap drummers, oh ya they don't actually play their instruments.

I think a lot of people (not you XYZ) that paticipate on these forums don't have a clue what Rock and Roll is, Back Street Boys, Mariah Carey, 50 Cent come on, that is not Rock and Roll! I've asked for your definitions of Rock and Roll but only got one response from Dameon, anyone else care to chime in.

SpaceTrucker

"Long Live Rock"
The Who



Posted by SpaceTrucker on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 11:41am

Nigal is a great drummer ..
As far a Watts goes, my point is he can cover it all with a 4 piece kit..
Hal Blaine and Watts can do with 1 bass drum where most need 2 bass drums..lol
The reason I brought up Watts as and jazz drummer is he has a lot of fills when needed, more than most drummers. It is not how much it is how. Most times less is more..
All ya need is EARS

Posted by mrxyz on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 12:33pm

SpaceTrucker

"Long Live Rock"
The Who



Posted by SpaceTrucker on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 11:41am


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you get a chance listen to the Surfaris Point Panic on "youtube"
I know for a fact, that Keith Moon loved Ron Wilsons of the Surfaris drumming ...He and the Van Halens Loved the Surfaris early roots of a wild guitar riffs and kick ass drums.. Bare in mind, when the Surfaris did it,, It had not been done in rock and there was no over dubbing {1963}etc {all 2 track live recordings }very ,very low recording budget also ..lol The Who and Van Halen built on the Surfaris primal roots of breaking the rules of rock..!!!! Even Wipe Out has it.. Point Panic really has it..! lol
ALL YA NEED IS EARS...{SMILE}

Posted by mrxyz on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 12:46pm

Dameon...quick question. Do you recall a group called The Ocean Blue? They had a pretty good song called "Between Something And Nothing" in about '89 or so, and then vanished (from around here, anyway). I came across their self-titled CD buried in a box and listened to it again. It really wasn't too bad...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 14:30pm

"Most times less is more.."-mrxyz

...ain't that the truth!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 14:33pm

Hey, mrxyz...I did some snooping, and discovered there's a film coming out about The Wrecking Crew. Looks like it could be cool...a bali hai (did I just say that???). Anyway, check out this attachment. I guess Denny Tedesco put it together...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzShxEa1LMo&feature=related

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 14:51pm

Mrxyz,

I totally respect your opinion of Mr. Watts as a great drummer. I don't have a problem with a good solid straight-up rock drum beat, I love a good solid groove and sometimes less is more. But we are talking about the best drummers and I don't think less is more applies here

As I stated in an earlier post I play the drums (amateur at best). I don't know if you play. I gage a drummer by my ability to play what they do. I can play most everything Charlie Watts plays with the Rolling Stones, I don't know about his ability to play jazz. Now when I attempt to play Neil Peart's or Carl Palmer's parts I can only dream of doing some of the things they do, so naturally to me they are better drummers.

So maybe my opinion is skewed because I play. If someone forms their opinion based on entertainment value thats fine. Thats why there is no absolute with these discussions so if you think Charlie Watts is the best thats cool. Enjoy!

SpaceTrucker

"Rock you Like A Hurricane"
Scorpions

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 18:03pm

"I can only dream of doing some of the things they do, so naturally to me they are better drummers"-ST

Maybe someday they'll look at you and say "now why didn't I think of that???"...that's what growing as a player is all about.

"KEEP LAYIN' DOWN THE THUNDER!!!!!"

What, I can't hear you!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 18:30pm

Gitarzan,

AWESOME!

Now we are getting somewhere. Harder edge, more volume and played with an attitude. ROCK and ROLL!

Dameon agrees with the attitude and so do I.

I also agree with the harder edge and more volume.

Now what if we say Rock and Roll is harder edged guitar driven music that is played louder and with more attitude. Anyone else want to add to that?

I know the piano played a big part early on but was quickly replaced with the electric guitar for the most part. Without the electric guitar it just doesn't have the balls, the crunch, the sustain, the feedback and of coarse the volume. I think the electric guitar is essential for any good rock song.

The emotion you mentioned is also a big part of it. Rock music is very powerful stuff.

If you apply our description of Rock and Roll to current inductees and nominated inductees many of them don't add up to Rock and Roll and should not be in the so called Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Have you ever thought about a Rock Hall of Fame that truly represents Rock and Roll? I know I have. If you could create your own what would be your criteria, how would pick nominees and how would they get elected? I would love to hear everyones thought on this.

Of coarse if you think that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is doing a great job this topic is not for you.

SpaceTrucker

"Well they call me the working man'
Rush

Posted by Space Trucker on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 19:51pm

Elton John and Billy Joel have made a case for the guitar not being the only instrument. Wakeman, Jon Lord and Keith Emerson also showed that heavier music did not have to have the guitar leading the way. There is also Kraftwerk on the techno side. But of course, the Electric guitar will always be the instrument of choice.

Rock was always about attitude and angst. It can go political at times, but in the end, it amounts to teenage hormones that drive the sound. But it all comes through in the song, and the true meaning of Rock comes out through the songwriter and most songs are usually written on the accoustic guitar, piano or small casio keyboard. It is in the studio where the Electric Guitar rules.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 21:13pm

Dameon,

I get the keyboard Rock and Roll thing, I know there are exceptions. But out of the thousands of rock bands there have not been that many keyboard lead bands. Jon Lord had Ritchie Blackmore, Rick Wakeman had Steve Howe. Elton John and Billy Joel's hardest rocking songs were powered by guitar.

I push Rock and Roll is guitar driven because I truly belive for the most part that it is, at least good Rock and Roll is.

I am trying to make my case because I believe it was a huge blunder on the part of The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to induct Madonna and Grand Master Flash that just opens the door for boy bands, rap, pop music everthing not Rock and Roll.

Rock and Roll is about the music, pure hard rocking music.

SpaceTrucker

"Long Live Rock and Roll, Long Live Rock and Roll"
Rainbow

Posted by SpaceTrucker on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 22:52pm

Hey Dameon, you forgot to mention Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard.

Honestly though, I mean, Jethro Tull showed that even a flute could be a rock 'n' roll instrument. Yeah, guitars are a huge part of it, but really, any instrument can be a part of the fun.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 08.16.08 @ 23:09pm

Hey Philip - I didn't mention JLL and LR because their's is a complete given. No one can deny them. And any instrument can be taken and brought into the mix. Long before Kansas, Mott The Hoople used the violin in spots that were different than the usual string arrangements.

ST - as much as I am not a fan of Madonna or pure dance music, I understand the need and love for the genre. Remember, RnR was also an expression of dance back in the 50's and like all other forms of RnR, "dance" always had an audience and always will. As for Rap; again not my favorite, but it certainly has its place in the RnR Hall. Music evolves in so many different directions and because bands started incorporating