|
Grex > Music2 > #123: The top 100 rock acts of all time. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 24 new of 48 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 25 of 48:
| 
Apr 11 16:29 UTC 1998 |
Yes and it sadly neglects 80s act such as Camper Van Beethhoven, The Minutemen,
The Red Hot Chili Pepepers, and I would put in Public Enemy as well if John
Coltrane is a rock act. Then ofcourse one the bands that I think has been
neglected for the talent of their music, The Throwing Muses.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 26 of 48:
|
Apr 11 17:49 UTC 1998 |
Thanks for the list, I'll save my comments for later . . .
|
scott
|
|
response 27 of 48:
|
Apr 11 18:52 UTC 1998 |
Interesting.... Of course, this is "greatest artists", *not* "most
influential".
|
lumen
|
|
response 28 of 48:
|
Apr 12 02:31 UTC 1998 |
Hey-- I think y'all are forgetting this is just opinion-- and it cannot be
more than that. Yours may differ.
|
senna
|
|
response 29 of 48:
|
Apr 12 06:21 UTC 1998 |
U2 and Nirvana are way too low, particularly Nirvana which more or less redid
rock and roll (along with other notably underrated bands such as Soundgarden
and Pearl Jam). If this is greatest artists, then there are definitely
problems lower down than the top 5 :)
|
eeyore
|
|
response 30 of 48:
|
Apr 12 12:48 UTC 1998 |
I should point out that this list WAS the most Inflentual people of rock....so
even if some of these people I don't like, at least I can understand why they
are on here...A lot of them hondestly helped to change rock. No, Johnny Cash
isn't rock....but a lot of people have his styling....
|
cyklone
|
|
response 31 of 48:
|
Apr 12 14:51 UTC 1998 |
As I suspected. Jeff Beck is a huge omission. Of course it probably didn't
help his popularity that he became known for cancelling out mid-tour. On the
other hand, Sly Stone also had that reputation and he's up at 28.
Nevertheless, this confirms my view that many musician's themselves lack taste
and knowledge of their own musical roots . . .
|
orinoco
|
|
response 32 of 48:
|
Apr 12 17:29 UTC 1998 |
Fine, most influential and not greatest....but even still - The Beach Boys?!
|
beeswing
|
|
response 33 of 48:
|
Apr 12 19:16 UTC 1998 |
Agreed... I do not understand the Beach Boys and never will. Even the title
Beach Boys sounds silly since they're all pushing 60 and look ten times older
than that since they got out of rehab.
|
scott
|
|
response 34 of 48:
|
Apr 12 20:58 UTC 1998 |
Er, Brian Wilson ranks up there with Phil Spector as a producer. Just didn't
last that long.
|
lumen
|
|
response 35 of 48:
|
Apr 12 22:21 UTC 1998 |
Opinions, opinions, opinions! Guys, this is just opinions! *sheesh* We all
know what we like. (But as an educator, I always hope folks will try
something new or take a fresh look at something they'd passed over.)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 36 of 48:
|
Apr 13 02:37 UTC 1998 |
I think Jeff Beck was covered as part of one of his groups.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 37 of 48:
|
Apr 13 12:20 UTC 1998 |
Nope, unless you count Rod Stewart (who actually was Beck's singer in his
first band after the Yardbirds). While I rechecked the list I also noticed
that Paul McCarteny was mentioned separately. Hmmmmm.
|
lumen
|
|
response 38 of 48:
|
Apr 13 23:55 UTC 1998 |
Well, Paul McCartney continued to crank out hits long after the Beatles
disbanded. "Flaming Pie" is a very noteworthy recent collection of his work.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 39 of 48:
|
Apr 14 00:06 UTC 1998 |
John Lennon also came in as 16, Paul at 62, with The Beatles
at # 1.
Others individuals part of mentioned groups:
Michael Jackson (40) - Jackson 5 (44); Paul Simon (100) - Simon &
Garfunkel (72);Eric Clapton (15) - Cream (52); Sting (63) - The
Police (10).
|
senna
|
|
response 40 of 48:
|
Apr 15 09:52 UTC 1998 |
I'm not sure why Lennon is so high, since his solo career wasn't all that
distinguished compared with some of the groups he's ahead of.
|
tao
|
|
response 41 of 48:
|
Apr 15 17:59 UTC 1998 |
They should have combined them into the Beatles/Lennon/McCartney.
Or, Lennon/McCartney.
|
senna
|
|
response 42 of 48:
|
Apr 16 01:39 UTC 1998 |
Well, he did have a solo career, just not much of one. Combining them would
imply that they were somehow connected in their careers in that respect.
Paul Simon and Radiohead also got short shrifts...
|
cyklone
|
|
response 43 of 48:
|
Apr 16 03:00 UTC 1998 |
Well, their early solo careers seemed to involve a lot musical digs at each
other. ;)
|
diznave
|
|
response 44 of 48:
|
May 18 17:12 UTC 1998 |
I can't *believe* The Flying Burrito Brothers weren't included in this list!
|
cloud
|
|
response 45 of 48:
|
May 19 00:22 UTC 1998 |
right. That's who I've always wanted to see too!
|
diznave
|
|
response 46 of 48:
|
May 19 14:49 UTC 1998 |
Or the Monkees.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 47 of 48:
|
May 20 12:04 UTC 1998 |
I've always thought of the Monkees as being the precursors to MTV . . .
|
lumen
|
|
response 48 of 48:
|
May 21 01:32 UTC 1998 |
Well, yes-- I believe it was the first extension into television-- before
that, 'music videos' were a part of films. Really, I would believe that
tradition has continued. I've watched some video collections by Anton Corbijn
for Depeche Mode-- although it is a far cry from Elvis and Beatles movies,
the videos are connected together in some sort of art story format.
|