My favourite band in the world has to be The Beatles. Hands down. They just have such a wide range of music and so many brilliant songs in such a short career (argueably, all their great music came within a 3 and a half year period - bands today make, maybe, 2 albums in that time).

However, The Beatles are just not what I would label as rock 'n roll; they were just The Beatles - a genre all on it's own. Without ranting too much on them, The Beatles covered everything from the most pop-songs (thank you Paul McCartney for ruining people's Beatles image) to blues-rock beyond even The Doors, from soft country-esque music to some of the first hard-rock. Anyway, point of the thread is; who are the greatest rock 'n roll band ever?

Let me first define rock 'n roll.

R.R. is not any group that stands up and sings about how great they are. That is called the 1980s. It's a period I wish we could forget.

R.R. is not pop-rock such as Creed. In fact, if you're considering listing any band within the last 6 years I highly suggest rethinking this.

R.R. is not punk. Punk is mindless drivel that hasn't been anything special since the Sex Pistols told hte Bollocks to move over.


Anyway, there's a lot more. I'm very picky about calling something rock 'n roll. Too often something like Sum41 will be called punk or Def Leppard will be called rock 'n roll.

So my nomination - The Who. I think The Who are the greatest rock 'n roll band in history. They had fantastic lyrics, brilliant music and awsome band members.

- Pete Townsend is a brilliant rythem guitarist. One of the greatest ever, in my opinion.
- Roger Daltry has one of the greatest rock voices ever and brings a personal touch to all lyrics.
- If John Entwistle isn't one of the greatest bassists ever, I don't know who would occupy the list.
- Keith Moon was a maniac and he played the drums that way.

Still, they were more than the sum of their parts.

Originally posted by Tyler

Let me first define rock 'n roll.

R.R. is not any group that stands up and sings about how great they are. That is called the 1980s. It's a period I wish we could forget.

R.R. is not pop-rock such as Creed. In fact, if you're considering listing any band within the last 6 years I highly suggest rethinking this.

R.R. is not punk. Punk is mindless drivel that hasn't been anything special since the Sex Pistols told hte Bollocks to move over.

but you're OPINION is NOT FACT.

Rock n roll has several sub genres. Pop rock, being one, others being metal, punk, goth, alternative, then those have sub genres, metal going into rap metal, heavy metal, speed metal and punk going into pop punk, indie punk, and so on.

It is strange that you bash a so called "pop rock" act such as Creed, but praise the Beatles because they are one of the, if not THE, biggest pop act of all time.

Now, I'm about to go into a rant on music elitism, but I think I'll make my own thread for that.

I have to agree that the Beatles did create some of the most excellent tunes ever and many of them are on my favourites list. The only problem I have is geography. I was born and raised in Liverpool (And on beatles music as it goes) but I can't move in the city for fuckin memorabilia shops and theme bars

Liverpool's famous for many things but I guess the Beatles just outshines most of them for the rest of the world.

That said as I grew older I did tend to favour Lennons solo stuff

in opinion, the beatles were pop.
the who were pop rock
elvis presley was rock and roll.

The beatles rule, but I agree, they were pop.

Hendrix, now theres some real rock n roll for ya:D

"If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician.
I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see
my life in terms of music....I get most joy in life out of
music." -Albert Einstein

little richard

Jimi certainly was rock and roll, a very good example. :cool:

Jimi certainly was rock and roll

No doubt about that!:) He was a god!

everything that has been played on MTV more than once is considered "pop-(insert genre here)"

I consider anything with a prominant guitar, nice solos, and over 10 years old to be rock n roll.

most hair bands don't count cause they're solos suck ass.

To name a couple...Guns 'N Roses, Eric Clapton.

And yes, Hendrix.

there are high and low times for the genre of rock n roll.

the 60's and early 90's were great for rock, beatles and hendrix, to nirvana and soundgarden.

80's was lame. a bunch of money hungry rejects trying to capitilize on the talent of times past.

And yes, Hendrix.

Henrix was a hair band?:D

Lay off the crack dude. Have you heard anything solo from Hendrix? One beautiful example was The Star Spangled Banner he played SOLO at Woodstock.

Yeah, that sucked:rolleyes:

Originally posted by reformedtopunk
there are high and low times for the genre of rock n roll.

the 60's and early 90's were great for rock, beatles and hendrix, to nirvana and soundgarden.

80's was lame. a bunch of money hungry rejects trying to capitilize on the talent of times past.

There's a pattern there- rock slept after John Lennon was killed, and rock slept after Kurt Cobain killed himself. We tend to find distraction as great way to overcome cultural trauma, so it made sense that in 1983, Michael Jackson really broke through, and in 1992, Whitney Houston did. After the loss of a cultural leader, we don't give things time to incubate before we innaugarate the next.

I think it took the 80's for rock to incubate back into Nirvana, and while the early 90's rock period was short, the rest of the nineties and probably most of the next decade will be spent incubating into newer rock. I think we are already starting to see the beginnings of that today- with The Strokes, Radiohead, Coldplay, The White Stripes, The Vines and whatnot. Besides Radiohead, I don't think any of these bands are all that great- but it's a start.

wow congrats, truely insightful. i never even looked at it that way. but i think you're right. the white stripes, vines, and so on could be the next wave of good music. But, i wouldn't say so just yet, they havn't really had the huge success of hendrix or nirvana.

To name a couple...Guns 'N Roses, Eric Clapton. And yes, Hendrix

I edited the thing and placed the hairband sentence...forgot to change what came after. :p

True, reformedtopunk. They (The Vines and their ilk) are really only elements of older rock thrown togtether with a different 'attitude.' They are good music, surely, but they are also irrelevant to our culture. The Strokes are doing nothing to further to our perception of our culture and ourselves, they merely giving us a reprieve from J. Lo....;)

Originally posted by Tyler
R.R. is not punk. Punk is mindless drivel that hasn't been anything special since the Sex Pistols told hte Bollocks to move over.

There was the Dead Kennedys, Black Flag and a bunch of bands on SST etc. during the 1980s. But then, one could categorize that as hardcore or some such thing.

not sure i've set this up right, but here goes.

if i'm not mistaken, didn't rock'n'roll begin with the likes of eddie cochran, chuck berry, jerry lee lewis, bo diddley, gene vincent, little richard, elvis etc ( a historical fact whether anyone likes it or not ). this would therefore lead one to say that rock'n'roll is performed by live musicians not computers/whatever, generaly electric instruments rather than accoustic, is generaly uptempo and traditionaly based on blues formulas ( a unique style that dates back to the early nineteen hundreds ).
as far as punk goes, i think one one the first bands to bring back the spirit of original rock'n'roll after it's first flurry in the 50's/60's was the ramones, classed as a punk band, but had the energy and excitement of the first timers and also were proud to say so, unlike the later "punk" bands who slagged it off to cover the fact they'd nicked the beat, instruments and attitude in a bid to stay trendy with the kids .
since then many bands continue the traditional rock'n'roll tradition, begining with crazy cavan 'n' the rhtyhm rockers who headlined the revival of original rock and the stray cats who've become a household name plus many new bands who perform today.
as far as commercial acts go, there's currently a big wave of rock'n'roll based bands getting recognised, the hives, the vines, the D4, the libertines, the strokes, foo fighters, black rebel motorcycle club to name a few.
well that's my message for now, hope i havent offend anyone.
rock on, dale

Besides Radiohead, I don't think any of these bands are all that great

so true.. so true.. radiohead is a fantastic band.. love their stuff..

dale again,
forgot to mention, jimi hendrix was originaly the guitar player for little richard ( lemmy from the worlds loudest rock'n'roll band - it's not true what they say about ac/dc ! ) was once the vomiting twiddlers roadie ( and used to nick his drugs ! ). by the way, anyone ever heard of link wray ?

If anyone here has read my postings on the arts and culture forum, they know what I'm going to say:


Weezer!!!!!!

(weezer symbol)
____ ____
---\ \ ___ / /---
\ \ / /\ \ / /
\ \_/ / \ \_/ /


I'm not very cultured at all, but I like to think that only adds to my ear for good music . The the only group that's really appealing to me is 'Weezer'. That band has an extremely unique history, and also some of the crappiest fans in the world -- though fiercely loyal and impartial to the "gay" remarks. Some of their best songs have not been made into singles, let alone onto their albums. Weezer is alot more talented than most people think.

C:\Documents and Settings\Aaron\My Documents\My Pictures\124214_7157549106174698760_vl.jpg

C:\Documents and Settings\Aaron\My Documents\My Pictures\NSEZGMHRWMKR.gif

so true.. so true.. radiohead is a fantastic band.. love their stuff..
radiohead is...ok...to say the most. i don't understand the big fuss about them. but thats my opinion, i could be wrong.

There was the Dead Kennedys, Black Flag and a bunch of bands on SST etc. during the 1980s. But then, one could categorize that as hardcore or some such thing.
i guess black flag is kinda the roots of hardcore, but its all punk rock. i don't have much respect for the drunken, violent, jock filled hardcore scene. Theres no unity or sense of community with those elitist fucks.

It is strange that you bash a so called "pop rock" act such as Creed, but praise the Beatles because they are one of the, if not THE, biggest pop act of all time.

Cheers. ;)

My this is an old thread...i think i posted here like, when i first joined. ;)

They reckon Alan Freed coined the phrase Rock 'n' Roll in the 1950's. I believe it had been mentioned in both country and blues music before that, usually as a metaphor for sex. In it's musical sense is perfectly describes the joining of the rock (4/4) beat with the roll of boogie music and similar that had rolling (usually piano) basslines. Where you take it after that seems to be based on personal experience. I reckon there was a lot of good stuff going on in the eighties, just not in the charts. i.e. The Meteors, NOFX, Stray Cats, Primatives, Rage against the machine. There always is good stuff happening, sometimes you just have to dig a bit deeper to find it.

about the beatles, the first big guitar pop band, also recorded and performed rock'n'roll songs throughout their career, check out the compilations "beatles rock'n'roll 1+2" and you get some great covers of carl perkins, chuck berry, larry williams etc alongside some great originals, i saw her standing there, i'm down, ussr, wanna be your man etc.
(ther's also john lennons album "rock'n'roll", containing trad stuff + paul mccartneys russian "choba b cccp!" + his recent "run devil run" i think these albums show the beatles coverd alot of "real rock'n'roll".
about the 80's, every band sang about how great they are, how would you define the smiths !!!
i like alot of 80s stuff, dont tell anyone!, there were alot of great bands that defy the nostalgia image we're always served up on top 100's etc, the primitives, madness, the bangles, the jesus and mary chain, the cure, adam and the ants, darling buds (surely you've not forgotten them), primal scream, the ska revival, the rockabilly revival, i could wallow in it all day!, and not one stock aitken and waterman song in sight.
any way thats the write up that's kept me up half the night, hope it's given you a good laugh if nothing else.
p.s. ugly dog, like ya taste, maybe we should swap emails !!

To me "rock and roll" and "rock" are two different things. For me "rock and roll" is Chuck Berry and that era. Rock is basically everything since.
So, greatest rock band? I have no idea.

Um, can someone explain the greatness of Nirvana to me?? Cause I really don't get it.

Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd

Nirvana is amazing because of sheer passion!

Guns n Roses
Tea Party
Bon Jovi

Qtn what would The Police be?

Originally posted by Rowen
Nirvana is amazing because of sheer passion!

But what about music quality??

The Police I would classify as soft/adult rock.

Stones, Beatles, Hendrix, Floyd.

Originally posted by Elbaz
[B]If anyone here has read my postings on the arts and culture forum, they know what I'm going to say:


Weezer!!!!!!

(weezer symbol)
____ ____
---\ \ ___ / /---
\ \ / /\ \ / /
\ \_/ / \ \_/ /


I'm not very cultured at all, but I like to think that only adds to my ear for good music . The the only group that's really appealing to me is 'Weezer'. That band has an extremely unique history, and also some of the crappiest fans in the world -- though fiercely loyal and impartial to the "gay" remarks. Some of their best songs have not been made into singles, let alone onto their albums. Weezer is alot more talented than most people think.
B]

I Agree, but then I <3 =w= more than I love any band, they will only gro and get better. I love The Beatles, but they aren't my favorite band because they are over and done with, Weezer is still going strong, making me constantly excited about them.

I was watching something on VH1 (I think) and soem rock critics were predicting we are in or another rock rebirth. He said the eighties were full of that pop crap and them bam here comes Nirvana turning everything upside down. And here we are again with Nsync, Britney and all that, something good is bound to be coming. I hope.

Appeal of nirvana:

1) "honest" lyrics, at least ones kids could relate to or found interesting
2) Catchy hooks
3) The intruige behind Kurt

Basically Nirvana was an easily digestible rebellion. Not trying to discredit the band of course; I do enjoy their stuff.

Originally posted by Nightpoet
Um, can someone explain the greatness of Nirvana to me?? Cause I really don't get it.



But what about music quality??

Musically, it is nothing too complicated. Kurt kept Nirvana at Nirvana's level. But hes done various recordings with musicians before and during Nirvana that were somewhat different, and has tons of home demos, so he still has a chance to get something released that is completely different.

Nirvana was mostly standard, half step down, or drop d tuning, and power chords and easy stuff, but that doesn't necessarily mean its bad. One of the great thrills for many musicians is learning their favorite band's songs, and Nirvana songs are easy to play, which kind of show the members as not much different than their fans. Then again, there is a big difference between writing a simplistic song and learning to play a simplistic song.

Nirvana has inspired a lot of bands. Even bands that were around before Nirvana admit being influenced by them a little or a lot. Off the top of my head:

U2
White Stripes
REM
Vines
Foo Fighters (for obvious reasons)


And these bands vary in forms of genre and musical quality, much like the Ramones. They inspired some great underground bands (check out your local punk rock scene) and many major label bands (Green Day, Blink 182, Sum41). While a band like Smashing Pumpkins is no doubt more complicated in songwriting and, arguabely, in talent, they haven't inspired a massive amount of bands.

Many bands can be covered because many times there is something missing. Bob Dylan is a great artist to cover because hes a great songwriter. But Nirvana had a certain chemistry that only they could come close to.

Originally posted by YoungWriter
Nirvana was mostly standard, half step down, or drop d tuning, and power chords and easy stuff, but that doesn't necessarily mean its bad.

I don't think Nirvana's bad, I just don't get why they're worshipped. But what you guys are saying makes sense. I know Kurt tends to pull a lot of people into the band, and they really aren't bad, just not the greatest.

and...anybody who know's me knows which band i'll choose...;) :D :p

My vote goes to TOOL. Really, what else could you ask for in a band?

Hands down, my favorite band. They're like the Pink Floyd of my generation.

and...anybody who know's me knows which band i'll choose...
gee, i wonder. Smashing Ass-chins? ;)

My vote goes to TOOL. Really, what else could you ask for in a band?


i don't get it. why is tool so cool? theres seems to be a conenction between tool fans and computer geeks. anything to this? or am i a fool?

Reasons why tool kicks ANY other bands ass:

1) Their drummer is unbelievably talented. You can't identify many song by the drum beat alone, but with tool songs you can. Not just their drummer, but the rhythym of the band. How many other bands can write such kick-ass stuff in 3/8 time? It's refreshing to listening to something other than 4/4 @ 170bpm.

2) Maynard is probably one of the best, if the not THE best rock/metal singer. Anyone who wants to contend this should go see tool live; every single note is dead on, and without any kind of digital enhancement. He is one of the very VERY few people that have perfect pitch. And his range is amazing. And the vocal melodies are very dynamic and innovative.

4) The lyrics. Elaboration isn't even necessary here.

5) Sober. Again, need I say more?

6) They are orchestrated metal. Unlike most of today's music, they arrange their songs so that there are climaxes, etc. It is such epic music, I can't help but get goosebumps from their songs. They don't find a cool riff and repeat it for 4 minutes; they build implied musical themes, and develop them over the course of 8 minute songs!

7) They are just plain intriguing. You can pick them apart in so many ways and still be left with a tangled mess. They are really intelligent people who love fucking with people's minds...and I guess I like being mindfucked, so it all works :D.

theres seems to be a conenction between tool fans and computer geeks
You calling me a geek :D:D: ??

I don't know. That's the great thing about tool, the transcend genres. I know people who listen to classical music and tool. Tool fans are some of the most diverse fans...

Or maybe it's just that EVERYONE likes tool, it's just that you happen to interact with the geeks more often ;)

most of the rock that i like does tend to from early 90's or is classic rock from the 60's/70's.

I just can't stand most of the stuff made today. all that rap-metal, or whatever they call it. ewww. I look at the billboard top rock albums and it's just crap, crap crap.

i can't think of any really good bands that are recent. it doesn't matter anyway, i usually am 5 years or so behind things.:D the white stripes sound interesting. I like their sound.

oh, and i'm voting for
PUMPKINS!!!!

and Pink Floyd.

scapegoat,
i have heard of link wroy
i have a record called rumble by link wray and his wray men
i hope this helps you
contact me if you want to know more

anyone heard of the firebirds?
great rock 'n' roll band in 1980's

Beatles were great, but the bands that were influential to me in the mid-60s were the Animals, the Kinks, and the Yardbirds, then in the late 60s were Hendrix and Cream.

coldrake,
dou you not like the classic artists such as chuck berry, buddy holly, eddie cochran etc.
(but the kinks, yardbirds & cream were good!)