Get e-book Where The Action Was: On the Inside of the Evolution of Rock ’n’ Roll

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Where The Action Was: On the Inside of the Evolution of Rock ’n’ Roll file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Where The Action Was: On the Inside of the Evolution of Rock ’n’ Roll book. Happy reading Where The Action Was: On the Inside of the Evolution of Rock ’n’ Roll Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Where The Action Was: On the Inside of the Evolution of Rock ’n’ Roll at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Where The Action Was: On the Inside of the Evolution of Rock ’n’ Roll Pocket Guide.

Get instant notifications from Economic Times Allow Not now You can switch off notifications anytime using browser settings. Panache AR, Memoji, Siri shortcuts: Vodafone Business Services Digilogue - Your guide to digitally transforming your business. TomorrowMakers Let's get smarter about money. CSR Compendium Touching lives of many. ET EnergyWorld A one stop platform that caters to the pulse of the pulsating energy. NIFTY 50 11, Drag according to your convenience.

No sense of humour? You know the answer. We can laugh at other people. Which is why, for years and years, our sitting ducks were Sardarjis. The only jokes that did the rounds nationally were Sardarji jokes. That single line was supposed to be hilarious enough to get Ms Ice Cube Aishwarya Rai to break into her famous giggling fit. Least of all the Sikh community. And I used to think they were the only community in India with a robust sense of humour. After all, the Sardarjis have been at the receiving end of countless jibes for decades.

This stereotype is as irresistible as it is omniscient. Today, Siddhu is a brand. Are we finally growing up? And that is heartening. Byaaj interest he bellows, as if interest can only be collected by such blood-suckers. Fierce, swash-buckling bandits are always Thakurs, while saucy gaon-ki-chokris speak a strange Bhojpuri lingo not heard anywhere in India.

Page 3 had a great cameo from a Pune stage actor, playing a cop leader of a raiding party , and delivering the best lines in the film. Considering one of the richest businessmen in the world Azim Premji happens to be a Muslim. 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. Had RS asked more indie artists to participate in this polling, they'd have easily been Top Also, CCR has a claim to being the greatest American rock act yet is absent.

Posted by Casper on Saturday, 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. 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, Could you not say that Nirvana wasn't impt. 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 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 I realize now though, from reading these posts, just how off the mark they are on Nirvana.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, What a dumbass list. 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. IMO, they were the better band. 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? 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, 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.

I learned to play "Smells Like Team Spirit" after hearing it once 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 Please remember, my young and impressionable years were post's Elvis which to me was the only Elvis that mattered , The Beatles and subsequent British invasion, the psychedelic era, the perpetuation into Sgt.

Then came New Wave 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 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" You're definitely right about years from now Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, I do like the conversation that this "list" has created. The thoughts concerning this have all been good No "such a beautiful voice" or "they're so dreamy"!! Allow me to re-phrase a previous statement Elvis from the 50's I think just about everyone on that list who hasn't been inducted yet, eventually will be. Dre I don't think Dre will get in twice. They unquestionably deserve a spot. Eminem is the "youngest" on the list.

Is there anyone else who has come along since who should be on there? Posted by mel on Sunday, 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. 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, Posted by Dameon on Monday, Amazingly enough, I think RS did get the better portion of the top 20 correct. 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. 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. You'd have to juggle the list a bit, but they deserve at least a 10 spot jump - perhaps more. Too hard to define "immortal" over just the last yrs. Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, Dameon, where you would you slot Queen? Pink Floyd is another huge omission -- they should be around 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, I'm of a mind to think that there's not out there. Heck, I don't know if there are Forever is a very long time. It makes you wonder how people like Mozart, etc They didn't record anything themselves, weren't on TV, etc The only thing that survived is their music. Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 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 greatest artists of the last 50 years.

Simply put - Queen should be in the top My personal opinion is top 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. No front man, not Plant, Jagger, Davies, Daltrey, etc. Brian May is one of the most unheralded guitarist ever and Deacon and Taylor were just amazing. And as campy as Bohemian Rhapsody may seem to us now, there wasn't a person between in the 70's that didn't go ape-shit when that song came on the radio.

Can you imagine how Queen would have ruled if MTV came out in instead of And here is the best part - I dare anyone to attach a genre to them. Musically, they could cross genres without skipping a beat. 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. I'm not willing to make Rolling Stone the scapegoat here. The voters are pretty diverse, including a lot of artists. 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. 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 flow on Monday, Posted by toby on Monday, 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 Liam on Monday, 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. What I was trying to say was that in 05 I did not believe they were top 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. Ok, here's one good one that has not been elected yet. I mean come on, Madonna was elected before Rush. Someone give me a good reason why Rush isnt in there!

Posted by Bobobrowns on Monday, 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 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 He took the brunt of the criticism from the public and kept shoving it back in their faces, on national television to boot. If you ever get a chance to watch it youtube has it , you'll see one of the most defining moments in rock history 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 This list doesn't mention people who were the true pioneers of that genre, though. 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, I meant "has had". Understand, I type words They're probably the most influential non- inducted group EVER!!! All of them, not just Smokey. Posted by Bill G. 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.

The EVOLUTION of Identity V - Part 2 - New Vs Old!

Dre is the most worthless guest rapper of all time. And, Led Zeppelin is too low. They should be higher than Way higher than 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 " greatest albums ever made"? Posted by Calzone on Wednesday, Get some Eric B.

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, Quit trying to make everybody go Brit.

I've got to laugh about how the U. 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's, and they couldn't do enough to hide 's America from the proceedings. One of the biggest cons ever perpetrated.

What gets me is that you haven't even offered any vision of your own list. 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.

- Rock And Roll Trivia

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, The Beatles are definatley for shiz immortal. No one will ever, nor could ever, forget about them. 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.

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. 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. Cause here, we all love music. Does sarcasm not work with you or something? 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. 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 bluepno on Friday, Posted by Bebe on Friday, Time for a break in music: Yanks - Red Sox 3 game series in Fenway.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, Posted by Joe on Friday, Posted by Liam on Friday, 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. Some classical music is very popular now; while some is all but forgotten. But Guns n' Roses? 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 Posted by Joe on Saturday, I'm still having trouble justifying Roxy Music.

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

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, None of this stuff is going to be remembered in 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 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 1st 80's act is at 22, 1st 90's is at The interesing parts are what lay outside the top There are a lot of kids out there today, and nostalgic feelings will still be the same in as they are today.

Will the kids of today sweep away everything in , while the kids of that moment cry that their own bands are not heard? The only way to stay alert is to stay aboveground in essence. 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 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.

Didn't notice that the Floyd wasn't on the list The last thing I wish to do is "Casey Kasemize" a list in any manner. 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 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 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 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: Would there ever be a time he surpassed them? After all, this list was put together before his album "Modern Times" came out. 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? It's a horrendous list; it really is the more I look at it. Most of what he did wasn't really rock in the traditional sense.

Stevie Wonder has no business in the top 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. 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. 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 The Kinks are way too low, and U2 are too high i.

RS has really gone and stereotyped itself with it's newer group picks. That has to be one of the worst lists I've ever seen. Isn't part of the criteria being able to sing? I have no more respect for Rolling Stone. I thought they knew what they were talking about!! Posted by That Guy on Saturday, And how are Prince and Nirvana ahead of Johnny Cash.

And where is Pink Floyd? Posted by Slinky on Saturday, 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. 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 Nirvana was more of an exclaimation point to the whole grunge thing. Once again, just one man's observation To all of you geniuses who are blaming this list on "Rolling Stone": Posted by fact check on Saturday, 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 Shit Face on Saturday, 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: Underground genre of the eighties: Most popular genre of the eighties: Underground genre of the 70's: And so, Most popular genre of the 00's: Underground genre of the 00's: So, if history repeats itself, won't folk be the most popular next decade?

Reply back, want to see your opinions. Posted by Calzone on Sunday, Calzone - I have to disagree with your analysis of the 80's. I don't know that anyone kept track of those sub-genres sales totals, but it could've been pretty much of a push. You really think alternative is THE sound of today? 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.

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. I hope that image hasn't given you nightmares. Not at all Gitar - when discussing popularity, the only measuring stick is sales and concert attendance. 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. 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.

Obviously it didn't work out for us. 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. Ooops - it seems that I forgot how to count. That would be four bands. Posted by dano on Sunday, 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.

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? Posted by Calzone on Monday, I hope that image hasn't given you nightmares Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, God help us all. Posted by The Chief on Monday, Thanks for the correction teacher. I also forgot to capitalize the "H". 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: I guess I am old. 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. Well, I'm a little confused as to what constitutes popular. 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. Posted by Philip on Monday, 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 Jessie on Tuesday, Posted by jessie on Tuesday, 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? 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. 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, I'd even say, more than most other acts from the 80s. And their live show is an experience worth a lifetime. 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, 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, I dont know maybe im just some chick that doesent know what im talking about, but i love them!

Posted by jessie on Wednesday, 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.

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. Probably wiser,and more intelligent, and i hope to be as wise and smart as you one day! 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. 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 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. I think Dameon and I have some things in common Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 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. 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 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, Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 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. You've no room for a full , 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, Okay Cheesecrop I'm going to really shake this list up and probably piss a lot of people off. Below is who is not in my Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. But I know we do. Posted by SpaceTrucker on Friday, 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. Like the 's in general, though. Who would have thought Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, I just took a quick look at this site. Here are some observations: Jonny Marr should be rated much higher. Peart and Bonham are not in Carl Palmer's league.

And Keith Moon was a much better drummer that Bonham. With all due respect to Jamerson, there is no way in this or any life that he tops Entwistle. Ray Manzarek needs to be dropped down big time on this list. 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. Townsend and Ray Davies need to be in the top 5. Ar far as drummers go Hal Blaine is the Next rock drummer is Charlie Watts.. Keith is cool 3 Jamerson is as hot as Entwistle.. Both good no doubt.. Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 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? 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. Charlie Watts and Hal Blaine have the best timming..

It is not how much you lay down it is where you lay it down 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. 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. Many musicians from the 60's all the way to present day have cited Keith Moon as a genius on drums. That says a lot. As for Ringo; the Beatles couldn't exist without him. 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?

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 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. I would never discount Watts or Blaine on any greatest list. 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.