I think that "Grunge" is 75% based on classic rock (mainly The Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix and Black Sabbath).

Either music hits you or it doesn't. Most Hendrix records I've heard don't hit me as anything that I'd ever want to hear again. While his skill may have been tremendous, it just doesn't translate to music that I like AT ALL.

I think also Neil Young with Crazy Horse.

Those exclusions are what makes that list stupid. (Really no Black Sabbath? I am sure that Queen and Pink Floyd are not included, but I was not aware of Black Sabbath exclusion).

On "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" there are least six different meters in the first twenty-one bars.

I know Bo Diddley music influenced the Rolling Stones, The Animals, The Yardbirds and the Kinks.

Not many British bands recorded Holly's huge hits like "Peggy Sue" and "That'll Be The Day" and "Oh Boy" but tons of them did "Bo Diddley" and "Hey Bo Diddley" and "Who Do You Love" and "I'm A Man" and also lots of his lesser known things.

And no mention of the real first rock and roll record, "Good Rockin' Tonight" by Wynonie Harris.

But even leaving that aside practically every metal artist takes some direct influence from Black Sabbath. And every metal artist takes important secondary influence. I can't think of another artist in any other large subgenre whose influence is so ubiquitous.

Not too familiar with Miles Davis or John Coltrane are we? And why does rapid changing of meters make that big of a difference honestly? In classical music that had already been explored far more than the Beatles ever thought of exploring it. Gershwin thoroughly explored it too.

I have never been an album listener. I never understood why anybody would want to listen to a bunch of songs in the order that some musician or producer decided that you should listen them to. I never bought into the whole thing
about songs on an album somehow being related to each other. Even on some of the most acclaimed albums of all time you have such unrelated songs on the same album as "Yellow Submarine" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Helter Skelter" and "Honey Pie."

Essentially the public bought into that horseshit and just swallowed it up.

I don't know what radio formats you've listened to but even on just normal "classic rock" stations I've heard Black Sabbath, the Wizard, NIB, War Pigs, Planet Caravan (although often the abysmal Pantera cover), Sweet Leaf, and Snowblind on almost as much as Iron Man and a few other songs scattered hear and there.

Right now, I think the first step in that direction is likely to be moving the Supremes and Elton John ahead of Holly.

I can understand that criticism when it comes to the likes of Vai or Malmsteen, but Hendrix? Most of his stuff just plain rocks. Have you heard his renditions of "Hey, Joe" and "All Along the Watchtower"? Taste is subjective, of course, but that stuff seems like outstanding rock 'n' roll, to me.

Come on, music has been listened to in big chunks for centuries. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, et al, weren't writing many 3 minute pieces. But, besides that, albums were better value for the money. The singles were still made available, but many fans wanted the albums and you seem to think they're all a bunch of suckers for that. What's difficult to understand about being a fan of an artist, even a singles artist like the Everly Brothers, and wanting more music from them at a better price?