|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 12, 2014 15:38:09 GMT -5
My sister would want Air Supply and Duran Duran, if at all possible, on this list. And what about Wings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 15:38:58 GMT -5
Great idea! I'll have the Asian Zing, please. 10 should do it.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 12, 2014 15:42:22 GMT -5
I had to google Asian Zing.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Feb 12, 2014 15:56:19 GMT -5
And where the heck is ABBA? Still in Sweden last time I checked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 15:57:45 GMT -5
No way. Taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Feb 12, 2014 15:59:10 GMT -5
Good point.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 12, 2014 16:07:42 GMT -5
Would the Bee Gees be considered a rock band?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 16:27:12 GMT -5
Did any of them ever play an instrument? I guess so. No comment.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 12, 2014 16:30:07 GMT -5
Why isn't Spinal Tap on this list?
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Feb 12, 2014 16:40:24 GMT -5
That said, any list that doesn't even mention either The Kinks or Creedence Clearwater (both hugely successful and hugely influential) should be dismissed out of hand. And of all the British Invasion bands, The Who consistently produced the most interesting music. Agree, that the Kinks were very influential, with that heavy barre chord sound. I wouldn't call them hugely successful, though. More respected than liked, I'd say. Agree, that Creedence was hugely successful. They probably sold more records than anyone else for a few years in the early 70's. But influential? Why do you say that? I can't think of any later group whose sound seems derived from Creedence. Who do you have in mind? And agree the Who did a lot of interesting stuff and a lot of varied stuff: pop hits, great live recordings, the conceit of a rock opera, the rock anthems of Who's Next . . . That's a lot of creativity on display for one band. But are you saying that the Who produced interesting music more consistently than those innovators par excellence, the Beatles? Ok. To each his own, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 12, 2014 16:58:18 GMT -5
There's also the issue of the BIG STAR frontman backed by a backing band vs. the ensemble band. For example:
Bruce Springsteen recorded and toured with his E Street Band, but he's mostly known for his own shining star unlike, say, the Beatles whose members (John, Paul, George, Ringo) were well known individually. Why shouldn't Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band be considered among the great rock bands? Steve Van Zandt, Clarence Clemons, Max Weinberg, etc.
Billy Joel also had a consistent staple of backing musicians. But Billy Joel is known for Billy Joel, not Billy Joel and his band.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 12, 2014 17:07:00 GMT -5
Does Elvis Presley count as rock? How about Elvis Costello?
Does Elton John count as rock? Suzanne Vega? Kool And The Gang? The Mamas and Papas? Jimmy Buffet?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 12, 2014 17:15:40 GMT -5
yes, yes, yes, no, no, yes, and no
So, mike, you bring up other examples of why and how classification fails without some workable definitions.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 12, 2014 17:36:49 GMT -5
Most of my favorite artists fall into the categories of "singer/songwriter," "blues," and "rock," but I gave up years ago trying to figure out if there was really any way to define a difference between them. Blues started out as black music, rock started out as white guys playing black music, and singer/songwriter mainly means ... what? A lot of rock (and blues, and country, and folk, and hip-hop, etc.) is vocalized by the songwriter. Is Eminem a "singer/songwriter"? Is Elton John? Paul McCartney?
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Feb 13, 2014 1:50:18 GMT -5
Why isn't Spinal Tap on this list? They are.
|
|