RS has put together a list of the artists they consider to be the 50 greatest rock and roll acts of all time. They "are the singers, songwriters, record makers and performers who are continually in the music -- as pioneers, teachers and stars; touching our souls and pulling us to our feet, on a daily basis -- even when they are no longer with us". Click here for Rolling Stone feature.

1) The Beatles

2) Bob Dylan

3) Elvis Presley

4) Rolling Stones

5) Chuck Berry

6) Jimi Hendrix

7) James Brown

8) Little Richard

9) Aretha Franklin

10) Ray Charles

11) Bob Marley

12) The Beach Boys

13) Buddy Holly

14) Led Zeppelin

15) Stevie Wonder

16) Sam Cooke

17) Muddy Watters

18) Marvin Gaye

19) The Velvet Underground

20) Bo Diddley

21) Otis Redding

22) U2

23) Bruce Springsteen

24) Jerry Lee Lewis

25) Fats Domino

26) The Ramones

27) Nirvana

28) Prince

29) The Who

30) The Clash

31) Johnny Cash

32) Smokey Robinson and the Miracles

33) The Everly Brothers

34) Neil Young

35) Michael Jackson

36) Madonna

37) Roy Orbison

38) John Lennon

39) David Bowie

40) Simon and Garfunkel

41) The Doors

42) Van Morrison

43) Sly and the Family Stone

44) Public Enemy

45) The Byrds

46) Janis Joplin

47) Patti Smith

48) Run-DMC

49) Elton John

50) The Band

[ March 27, 2004, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

My first thoughts were the Beatles and Nirvana; glad to see they both made the list. I was pleasantly surprised to see The Clash too. I thought London Calling and Sandinista were awesome multi-albums.

The Top 20 is further proof of the greying of the Rolling Stone Magazine editorial staff. How unfortunate.

Rock and Roll started about 50 years ago. Yet, you can count on ONE HAND the number of artists RS picked who have risen to fame during the last 20 years. Rolling Stone sucks!

[ March 27, 2004, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Just about to say the same thing. It's as if they are on a mission to convince everyone under 25 not to read their magazine.

I feel compelled to defend Rolling Stone a little on this one. Based on the criteria used, as stated above, most of the artists selected must naturally be older artists. As "pioneers" continually in music, even when they are no longer with us.

To meet this criteria an artist must have a well established track record for long lasting influence. "Newer" artists just aren't going to meet this requirement.

Kurt Cobain is one of the rare artists from recent times that meet the standards they are looking for. He was one that I thought of right away, and Rolling Stone has Nirvana on the list.

That says more about what the last 20 years have been like and less about RS.

I'm a 40 something, have been reading Rolling Stone for more than 2 decades and still find this list to be incredibly outdated and without imagination.

How on earth is Bob Dylan still in the Top 10? Great songwriter, horrible vocalist, modest guitar player. There are at least 40 other musicians of the rock n roll era that meet or surpass the same criteria. Compare to Eminem: great songwriter, better singer and master showman. Maybe Dylan belongs in the Top 50 but he sure as hell isn't more important than Elvis Presley.

Speaking of Elvis ... how would any rock critic think that anyone is more important than Elvis in the annals of rock and roll?

My other beefs: Aretha Franklin at #9 is laughable. I don't doubt that she is a tremendous talent but only managed to manifest it in two, maybe three, albums. Aretha started the whole movement of "over emoting" every possible note ... questions? See Christine Aguilera.

Ray Charles at #10 is lunacy. What the hell is he known for? Singing "America the Beautiful" at Republican conventions. Give me a break.

I personally love the Velvet Underground but they don't belong on this list. Neither does Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, Smokey Robinson (puhleeese), Patti Smith, Janis Joplin or the Band.

And I can't believe they put Nirvana ahead of The Who, The Clash, Johnny Cash, Bowie et al. Nirvana was an attitude, a product that Cobain helped to created openly admitted to. They were not a great band any more than their predecessors, the Sex Pistols.

[quote]JR in TX:

[/quote]That says more about what the last 20 years have been like and less about RS. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Brilliant assesment JR!! :cool: This is a list of LEGENDS,and most of these people have influenced countless generations of fans for 30 or 40 yrs. It's hard to explain,but when I first started listening to some of these folks back in high school-I KNEW that I would be listening to them for the rest of my life. Now 30 yrs later,I still feel exactly the same way.Fads and novelties come and go,but these people have endured because of what they accomplished.

Should anyone who emerged in the last 20 yrs be a part of this list? My personal opinion is no,but eventually only time will tell.I think that MTV has contributed to a decline in standards,and that we are seeing an emphasis on quantity-at the expense of quality.In my opinion,a lot of people with little or no talent are becoming unbelievably wealthy.They have become adept at promoting themselves in slickly produced videos that emphasize glamour and glitz to camoflage a lack of substance and real talent.

Of course opinions are subjective,and maybe at 48 I've become the old guy that Townsend feared becoming in My Generation.But personally I'm extremely proud of what the people on this list, who represent the legacy of our generation have accomplished.They have set the bar unbelievably high in terms of the impact that R&R has had on the history of an entire generation of baby boomers.So to any of you younger guys who feel your heros were slighted-be patient.Remember that the list is called "The Immortals"-not the latest flavour who won the MTV video awards. :cool:

Great songwriter if you consider the same old screeds about those he hates (women, his mother, his ex, gays) to be brilliant; he DOESN'T SING, he raps (granted, he's good at that); master showman if you consider walking around on a stage grabbing your crotch to be brilliant.

You act as if they didn't have control over what to do...the criteria itself is what shows the editors' age. Because of those qualifications, they have an excuse to exclude newer artists like Radiohead that definitely deserve to be on this top 50 list. Only three of the artists on the list debuted in the last twenty years (#27 Nirvana, #44 Public Enemy, #48 Run-D.M.C.) and the last two aren't even rock groups.

If they wanted to honor rock and roll pioneers, they should have had, well, a "rock pioneer" issue to showcase people like Sam Cooke, Bo Diddley, Muddy Watters, Ray Charles, and so on.

Well, you're argument crumbles to dust the second you compare Dylan to Eminem (who I love, BTW). First off, Eminem doesn't write the music, he relies on producers like the great Dr. Dre to provide it for him. He doesn't sing--and his few attempts have been cringe-inducing, that's for sure--and while Dylan won't be singing at the Metropolitan Opera house anytime soon, he's got a style. Pull out Highway 61 and listen to Like a Rolling Stone. Case closed.

Dylan single-handedly brought politics, poetry and intelligent lyrics to rock. His work from 1964-1967 and sporadically since is vital.
As a sociological phenomenon, sure. As a musical entity, apart from the people he inspired, he didn't write the songs, he was just a singer. He was great from 1955-1957, but after that? Mostly awful.
I think you're showing some ignorance here. Have you heard What I'd Say or any of his incredible late 50's/60's records? He had IT, the voice, the soul, the heart. #10 might be a bit high, but he was wildly influential on a lot of people.
How to put this politely? Um, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The VU are influential beyond belief and their first two albums are incredible. Fats? Agree, that's a bit of a stretch. Smokey Robinson (puhleeese)? Are you joking? Great songwriter, great singer, just the fact that he wrote and sang Tears of a Clown is almost enough to put him on this list by itself. Patti and Janis: every chick that plays in a band owes it to them. Period. No Patti or Janis? No Liz Phair, no Joan Jett, no Courtney Love, no Elastica, no...... The Band were hugely influential in 1968/1969, they were almost singlehandedly responsible for the whole roots-rock thing.
Hahahahahaha! Oh puh-leeeeesssseeeeee. Much as I love late 60's/early 70's stuff--to me, rock music was supreme from 1966-1974--the Pistols were SO needed. You say you're 40, you must not remember how AWFUL rock music was in 1977 when they came along. For wiping Boston and Journey off the map like the Pistols did and for wiping Winger and Ratt and Motley Crue off the map like Nirvana did, that alone is worthy of a top 50 placing. Nevermind and Never Mind the Bollocks changed everything, there was no turning back after those records. How many people on this list can make that claim?

The list is too American-centric for my taste and as 6Iron says, to leave Radiohead off is pretty perverse.

[ March 27, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

How does Metallica not get on that list? Because it doesnt appeal to the baby boom 60's love generation or the teenage girls of today like Michael Jackson or Madonna? A band that has sold 60 million albums, more than almost everyone on that list, has extremely talented, sophisticated song writing abilities, on complicated subjects. Had one of the greatest bassist of all time, and a great vocalist Hetfield and guitarist Hammet. And definetely has influenced most all the bands today including the Seattle bands of the early-mid 90's. That list is just a popularity contest.

[quote]Jim Allen:
[quote]  You say you're 40, you must not remember how AWFUL rock music was in 1977 when they came along.  For wiping Boston and Journey off the map like the Pistols did and for wiping Winger and Ratt and Motley Crue off the map like Nirvana did, that alone is worthy of a top 50 placing.  Nevermind and Never Mind the Bollocks changed everything, there was no turning back after those records.  How many people on this list can make that claim?

The list is too American-centric for my taste and as 6Iron says, to leave Radiohead off is pretty perverse. [/quote]I agree with most of what was presented here, but not ALL of rock music was horrible in the late 70's. I was also one of the kids yelling "disco sucks" back then, but we did have groups like Boston, Cheap Trick and the Cars to break up the monotony. Boston has a unique sound that nobody has come close to duplicating to this day. Cheap Trick had the guts to put out a live album before they were superstar artists, ironically it was the live album that made them superstars. And the Cars have to be the most underrated classic rock group of all time. Their successes were countless, and their debut album was groundbreaking for the new wave explosion of the 80's.

I have to admit Radiohead was one I overlooked. They deserve to be on this list. With their "off the beaten path" commercial appeal and critical acclaim, I consider them the Clash of the 2000's.

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo, Jim Allen.
Especially your words on Smokey Robinson and Dylan.
Isn't there a famous quote of Dylan's where he says he wishes he'd written "Tracks of My Tears"?

I write for Rolling Stone on occasion, though I had nothing to do with this issue or list. I'VE had my own issues, too, with some of their choices, new and old...that said, this list is pretty apt. It isn't "The Greatest Acts" or "The Most Popular Acts" of all Time, it's a list of pioneers and legends. Which, uh, by definition folks, would mean many of them would be old or plain ol' dead.

I do think, however, that I would have added R.E.M. to the list.

It's hard to say too many of today's artists should be on the list; I think one of the keys is longevity - not how long the career lasts, but rather how long the music lasts, how it influences others, etc. That said, I think David Bowie and Prince are both Top 10 Rock Artists. How can they NOT be, fer crissakes? And any list that excludes the Greatful Dead and Queen has no credibility in my book. As for Eminem, definitely Top 50 - he and Nirvana are the most important things in rock since Madonna's pointy bra. Some may not like his message, but that doesn't mean it's not an important one.

[ March 28, 2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

THE most glaring omission on the list is Carole King. She practically invented the "pop" song as we know it.

If Smokey Robinson and Ray Charles had such a great influence, please name current artists that would list them as important to their development as recording artists?

(And if there aren't any to be named ... well, then, how could you call them influential?)

And listing Joan Jett, Liz Phair, Courtney Love and Elastica as the modern day descendants of Janis & Patti, well, I rest my case. I admire Janis and Patti but simply can't listen to an entire album in the same sitting. Saddling them with the responsibility of spawning Courtney Love is an injustice unto itself.

Someone mentioned the omission of REM. It seems to me there are a number of bands & artists from the mid-80s, independent, alternative scene that could be considered. Besides REM, what about the Pixies, Sonic Youth, Husker Du, etc? What about Joy Division/New Order?

Uh.....you mean the sound that Journey, a good jazzy-rock group before the odious Steve Perry came along duplicated? After Boston sold 8 million copies, it seemed like everyone sounded like that. Uh, hello? Peter Frampton? Frampton Comes Alive, which was a double album by an relatively unknown guy?
The Cars were terrible live--even they admitted it--but you're probably right about the New Wave thing. They were the glossy, acceptable face of New Wave. 1975-1978, roughly, was pretty grim because all the great 60's bands were gone or in terminal decline and The Clash/Pistols/Elvis Costello/etc. hadn't made much of an impact here yet.

I looked at the issue of RS today at Book Soup. They had a list of people who voted and it is the usual 40-something + suspects that did the voting. If 30-somethings had voted, it would have been Beck, Pavement, Sonic Youth etc., the usual people that Spin trots out when they want to do a list. One thing that bugs me is the overly-broad tent of "rock and roll" that they use, like Golfer 20 noted. A "Pioneers" list would have been good, as you said.

I agree with CnSea, Metallica should have been on there, Radiohead definitely, REM too (in place of The Byrds, who I think are way overrated, great as Eight Miles High is). I'm reading Dennis McNally's book about The Dead now, so yeah, they should have been on there but I think the way the list was set up mitigated against that.

I'm fairly new to Outsports, but I want to jump in the fray here. Why is Tina Turner not on this list? I checked it a couple of times just to make sure that she wasn't there before I wrote this. Her life, voice and performances are pure Rock and Roll; just ask a few of the Brits who made that list.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 6iron:
[QB]
How on earth is Bob Dylan still in the Top 10? Great songwriter, horrible vocalist, modest guitar player. There are at least 40 other musicians of the rock n roll era that meet or surpass the same criteria. Compare to Eminem: great songwriter, better singer and master showman. Maybe Dylan belongs in the Top 50 but he sure as hell isn't more important than Elvis Presley.

oops i messed up, So why IS bob Dylan in such a high position? Anyone familiar with his stuff beyond "like a rolling stone" can answer that. In my opinion his lyrics are transcendent. I think he's a genious. He singlehandedly brought legitimate lyrical content into popular music. He was the first white man to do that. He changed the face of american rock forever. He cant play and he cant sing, but what he wrote, if listened to or read, is on par with any great religous leader or philospher. It's in the words.

One rhetorical question on the Bob Dylan issue (and I'll shut up, I promise): how many young people are buying Bob Dylan CDs?

These lists are so boring and pretentious. I think Q magazine had a "Coolest people in Rock" list with The Strokes, Jake White, Karen O somewhere in the top to give you an example of what kind of list it was. It made me throw up a little in my mouth.

My biggest beef with the list isn't who's on it, which for about 40 of them I agree with, but the order that they're rated.

How can Prince be rated before Johnny Cash? How can Neil Young be rated before John Lennon and David Bowie? And how can Elton John just barely make the list at all? I know to a degree it's a matter of taste, but still if we're talking influence, longevity, record sales, and over all impact, well, I'd reshuffle the deck.

The best test for any recording artist is if their body of work resonates with you throughout your lifetime. When you're young a certain song from them appeals to you, but as you go through different phases of your life different songs speak to you - you're favorite song from them changes from time to time - as you change. If you use this criterion, then many of these acts shouldn't be on the list at all.

Having said that, again, I agree with most of the rankings - but would change the order significantly.

[ March 29, 2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

My God, is there any variation of "greatest" list the RS marketers haven't puked forth in the last 5 years? The Kinks' absence alone renders this one dismissable.

Who's influenced by Smokey and Ray Charles? Pretty much any R&B artist worth shit.

The greatness of Johnny Cash and Muddy Waters is undeniable, but they're not primarily rock artists. (Neither were Marley or Simon & Garfunkel.)

Neil Young vs Lennon as a SOLO artist? Neil should win that handily.

I'm not a big Dylan fan, but he undeniably changed the course of pop music.

Who cares? Most young people, in music or anything else, have absolutely no interest in cultural heritage and history. How many of them are buying Orson Welles or Akira Kurosawa DVDs?

[ March 29, 2004, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Thank you Catcher and billsf! My initial thought on this list, understanding that "legends" are few and far between, was the REM had to make it - they basically invented the whole phenomenon of "alternative" (or progressive, or college radio) music in the early 80's, a good ten years before it exploded with the Seattle sound.

And Carole King has to be considered one of the top 5 songwriters of all time, was one of the most influential women in music (and let's be serious, women are always getting the short shrift here) and "Tapestry" is a classic that should be in every collection.

I hadn't thought of Tina Turner, but on second consideration, she really deserves to be on the list as well - if only for succeeding in so many different eras with so many different styles.

Hmmm, "invented the phenomenon"? Only if that means they were the first band from that culture who were immediately successful with their first album (which cracked the Billboard Top 40). A great band (at least from 1982-94), but at least in NYC they got commercial FM play from Murmur on.

Most fatuous, overrated act of the last 20 years: U2. (Their first three albums are OK.)

Two heresies in one posting. Grab bundles of wood, boys, we have a burning to do!

I also agree that Tina Turner should be on this list. Actually, it should be Ike and Tina Turner. Seeing Prince and Beyonce during a recent awards show reminded me of Ike and Tina.

I also agree that Carole King should be on the list. Smokey and Ray Charles have both influenced every Gospel, Rock, Pop, R&B and Soul performer in some way. Their lyrics, style and musical arrangements are still heard in the music of today.

I think Alicia keys is just one example of someone who has been influenced by Carole King, Smokey Robinson and Ray Charles. As a vocalist, writer and musician.

Count me as another person who is left wondering why Tina Turner isn't on this list. And Fleetwood Mac. And Crosby, Stills and Nash. And Carole King. And Carly Simon. And Jackson Browne. And The Eagles. How about Bonnie Raitt? And that's just from my favorite artists (though Raitt ISN'T one of my absolute favorites.)

Bob Dylan may be an AWFUL singer and a mediocre guitar player at best, but LYRICALLY, no one can touch his best work. His classics still have relevance and resonate long after they were first written.

My problem with the list is that it is supposed to be "Rock Artists", which to me eliminates Michael Jackson, Madonna, the Beach Boys, and (as much as I love him and his music) Elton John. To me after the late 60s rock and pop separated and went two completely different ways. Also, the R&B singers that influenced rock but were not actually rock artists could be moved to another, equally important but separate list, such as Muddy Waters, Otis Redding, Aretha, etc. I would definitely add Pink Floyd, whose Dark Side of the Moon album is still in the top album sales every year, Bonnie Raitt, REM and Melissa Etheridge. Of course I would have Bruce in the top 10.

Um, Pet Sounds?

What - no AC/DC? :confused:

I wouldn't say I'm comfortable with putting Dylan on the same level as Jesus, Ghandi, Plato or Nietzche, but it really is more than just the lyrics. The boy, in his day, could write tunes, it's just that it took other people to make that apparent, i.e. Hendrix and All Along the Watchtower, Manfred Mann and Quinn the Eskimo, The Byrds and Mr. Tambourine Man and so on.

Bill W., I laughed when I saw your mention of The Kinks; I just read a Pete Townshend interview where he was basically saying Ray Davies is one of the best ever. I'm going to pull out Arthur for a listen tonight. And you're right, REM wasn't some utterly undergound phenom like, say, Black Flag or the Dead Kennedys--Radio Free Europe got a lot of airplay on KROQ here in Los Angeles.

Savvy, you're right, RS has turned in to a tabloid version of Q. I love Q but they love lists waaaaay too much, though there's a good special issue out about the 70's now that has a good 5 page article about prog rock that actually takes it seriously, though of course they can't get over the music press' obsession with Rick Wakeman's capes. RS even uses the snarky captions under photos now that Q were doing years ago.

What's so special about the Kinks is that every individual fan has a different favorite album. It's very unique how Kinks' fans attach themselves to different albums. In my opinion it has to do with the very personal way in which Ray Davies reaches people with his songwriting.

My personal favorite is "Misfits". A great collection of songs about people with "Hay Fever", "Out of the Closet" concerns and just about every little individual thing that isolates so many persons from the crowd.

Brilliant stuff, but so is "Muswell Hillbillies", "Sleepwalker", "Lola vs blah blah blah" and so many others.

The absence of The Police was a bit surprising to me. They were able to implement a little pop, rock, and yes, even a bit of reggae, with insightful lyrics, in a different manner that had never been heard before.

Bill W wrote:
Neil Young vs Lennon as a SOLO artist? Neil should win that handily

Why would that victory come so "handily"? Has Young influenced more artists, and impacted music on a greater scale than Lennon? Are his few solo hits more memorable and more valued by listeners than Lennon’s? Perhaps a case can be made - not readily apparent to me - but the term "handily" cannot go unchallenged.

Bill W wrote:
Most fatuous, overrated act of the last 20 years: U2. (Their first three albums are OK.)

Gasp. I'm joining Bobby 78751 and gathering wood. It's nice that you admit that their first three albums are "ok." I'm curious how you would describe The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby - the former being one of the greatest albums in the last 20 years and arguably one of the greatest albums of all time.

"Achtung Baby" is a masterpiece. Compare it to "Rubber Soul" by the Beatles, "What's Goin' On" by Marvin Gaye. This is a case where the artist takes a right turn and the music is fresh, innovative, inspiring and ageless.

Another thing should be added re: U2. They are simply the best performing rock artists of all time. By a nose over Prince.

Okay Bruce is a close third. Very close.

I would describe Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree as mostly arty-farty bilge that I never purchased. Bono is the most insufferable rock star ... maybe ever. At least Jim Morrison had the good sense to snuff it when he became unbearable.

Neil Young looks mightily influential to me, and has made great or very good music for nearly 40 years, something none of his peers can claim. I hear an awful lot more young bands trying to sound like After the Gold Rush than Plastic Ono Band. Certainly Lennon is a giant, but at least 90-99% of his status comes from that band he was in first, and he made only a handful of indelible solo songs. (And the best version of "Imagine" was done by Neil on TV post-9/11.)

Absolutely! Although I do tend to go back and forth about what their best album is: The Unforgettable Fire, Achtung Baby, or War.

I was disappointed by the absence of Steely Dan, Santana and Supertramp from the RS list. To me, most of their music had a unique sound and is still quite listenable (the terrific piano solo in Supertramp's 'School', from Crime of the Century is one of my all-time favourite cuts).

I can't say the same for Chuck Berry, Elvis, James Brown, Dylan, Hendrix, Beach Boys, Nirvana, Prince and Little Richard. And speaking of Little Richard, did anyone else notice he was the only artist out of the fifty who had the arrogance to choose himself? On the other hand, I can't argue with the inclusion of The Beatles, The Who, Stevie Wonder, Springsteen, Elton John, Ray Charles, The Band, Janis Joplin and Bowie.

I agree with those who have mentioned Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles, The Police, CSNY and Carole King. All of them deserve to be on the list.

[ April 01, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Marc ]

Better than The Who with Townshend/Daltrey/Entwistle/Moon ca. 1968-1974? As the British would say, live, The Who from that era piss on U2 from a great height. U2 wishes they could be as great live. See: the Isle of Wight DVD, where they do Tommy almost complete. Or See Me/Feel Me from Woodstock. Or Won't Get Fooled Again from The Kids are Alright.

Better than Zeppelin in their pomp? King Crimson ca. 1974? ELP ca. 1974? Etc. etc. I've seen U2 live twice and they're a good onstage juke-box.

Prince is terrific but I saw him almost get bottled off stage by a Rolling Stones crowd who didn't appreciate a black man coming out in a purple frockcoast and silver jock strap. Prince had the last laugh though with Purple Rain three years later.
At the risk of sounding like Bill W., I saw Brooooce once and me and my brother walked out before the end, bored to tears. I've never gotten the adulation for him. If Bill W. thinks U2 is overrated, Bruce is my nominee.
Yeah, knowing when to leave gracefully is a talent, isn't it? On a British board I go to, they call Bono \"The Smarmy God-bothering ***\", while Sting is just \"The ***\". Hard to disagree with those assessments.
Yeah, the Dan were great, but Santana's been way too inconsistent. This list is about influential artists and I don't think either of them would qualify.
Yep, that's a good piano solo.....as Keith Emerson showed about 4 years earlier on Take a Pebble. Supertramp were a good pop band, but Immortal? Hmmm......
How old are you? Have you actually heard a good sampling of those artists? Do you know anything about rock music history? I know, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but really, no serious scholar of the music would share your opinion.

Chuck Berry shouldn't be there? The Rolling Stones built an entire career off of him; witty lyrics, some of the best riffs ever and a good guitarist too. That's just absurd to say that.

James Brown? You mean the most sampled man in history? The inventor of funk? The man who influenced Sly, Mick Jagger, Miles Davis and countless others? You can't be serious.

Dylan, I've covered.

Hendrix? The man who shattered the concept of electric guitar playing, the man who had Clapton and Beck and Page and almost every other guitar player worshipping at his feet? The man who was the template for the careers of Stevie Ray Vaughn, Frank Marino and Robin Trower, the man who probably was the most complete rock star ever, writing great songs, singing and producing his material? Manic Depression and Love and Confusion alone are proof of that particular pudding.
Again, this list is about influencing people, not Great Bands That I Really Like. If that was the case, I'd be screaming for the inclusion of Yes, King Crimson, The Cure, ELP, Gentle Giant, Phish, The Smiths, Joy Division, Echo and the Bunnymen, Pink Floyd and on and on.

What a great thread this is.

[ April 01, 2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

I love this thread too. Growing up, listening to Boston, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, BTO, and Cheap Trick meant everything to me.

I grew up in a small town, had no clue as to what I was about or what I might become. It was music that helped me get outside myself and beyond.

And it still does. We should start a new thread ... what new music is doing it for you now?

My nomineee: the Stills. Can't stop listening to them ... kind of like the Pretenders meets New Order meets the Cure. A pop/rock band that has absolutely no evidence of the hip/hop influence. There must be a God.

I have to throw in my vote for REM, like the others above, but not for Radiohead (as much as i like them, not yet).

Not totally sure about the Everlys, Fats Domino, or John Lennon (solo) and would almost (almost) put Van Halen and Fleetwood Mac in at the end. Tina Turner is more of a live phenomenon than a recording artist (perhaps like the Dead?)

Elton and the Who are too low. Overall, the list is not too bad.

[ April 01, 2004, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: JR in TX ]

Posted by Jim Allen:

If you say so...and I guess that's because you seem to take considerable pleasure in attacking others in this thread with your superior knowledge. You have every right to disagree with the opinions of myself and others, but please spare us the condescending, belittling tone. I never said that Hendrix, Elvis, Berry (etc) were not 'influential' nor do I dislike everything they have done. And yes, I have 'actually heard' many samplings of these artists, thank you. I just don't happen to agree with the statement that every single artist on the RS list "touches our souls and pulls us to our feet on a daily basis". Unless I'm pulled to my feet to change the radio station when I hear "Help Me Rhonda" or "When Doves Cry" for the gazillionth time.

[ April 01, 2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Marc ]

Marc: you just got tired of your big brother listening to Jimi Hendrix all the time. I love "Hey Joe"

Mard said:
[/QUOTE] You have every right to disagree with the opinions of myself and others, but please spare us the condescending, belittling tone,
[QUOTE]

Having worked in music stores, hung around other music fanatics, I've come to expect the agressive tone of the Jim Allen's of the world. It's kind of like the Jack Black character in High Fidelity.

No harm, no foul ... just kind of goes with the territory.

"Paypul, paypul, whoy ah we foighting?" :cool:

Yeah, with topics like this you have to be prepared for fans to get all High Fidelity on your ass.

And you damn near ruined it by being so damn condescending. How arrogant can someone possibly be? Are you God's gift to music? Come on!

Even Philly Fan doesn't piss me off nearly as much as you just did.

How about everybody submit their own personal Top 10 or Top 20 lists. That would be interesting to me. It's really kind of silly to go into fight mode over such a silly topic. Don't we have enough of the name calling and bitch slapping in the political forum?