i said that because i think they are really overrated on this site. and yes, i think they belong below Zeppelin. but that's not what the focus of my post was, and its not something i want to argue about.

i don't know why you can't see how the Who vs Zeppelin argument has always been warped by the fact that you had way more passion for it than any Zep fan had. reading those threads back in the day was like watching Hannity and Colmes. it didn't matter who was right or wrong, because you completely dominated the opponent with walls of text. rather than focus on big picture things, you threw out every tiny bit of support you could find for The Who.

in nearly a decade of paying attention to this kind of stuff, i don't recall ever seeing The Who above Led Zeppelin on any list outside of this one. i also have never met a Who fan as big as you. so i put two plus two together: the one list that has Who over Zeppelin is the same one whose most vocal participant is a major Who fan. it doesn't take rocket science to figure out what the connection is.

this doesn't mean i think you lost the debate. i think you crushed your opponents in the Who vs Zep thread. not because you were right, but because your opponents were no match to begin with. its just the "Zep vs Who" debate doesn't really exist outside of DDD. outside of DDD, Zeppelin always ends up on these types of lists higher than The Who by at least a decent margin. and getting in a long debate with a Who fanatic (and i don't say "fanatic" in a bad way either, but that's just what you are) isn't something i have any interest in doing. because i'm not a big Zeppelin fan and i think they are too high too. i'd rather focus on getting Michael Jackson in the top 7 and Ray Charles above both of those bands.

"Colour My World" really died over the years. When I first started DJing in clubs in 1979 it was still a huge slow dance record that got lots of requests. But it seems now to be a forgotten item that was once gigantic.

The big non-punk, non-'70s rock that influenced Mother Love Bone was Jane's Addiction. I think any GNR influence you hear is just a byproduct of mutual influences.

you are gonna have to explain this one...

You're completely missing Clash's point in making that comparison. He's not saying that Talking Heads were the best American rock band at the time, so should be ranked highly. He's saying they were regarded as the best American rock band and both Talking Heads and Blondie are in the subset "American rock band." Therefore, Talking Heads were regarded as better than Blondie.

And I'm very late. I just didn't realize this thing had 200 pages before I started posting.

Which still doesn't mean much because being regarded as "the best (whatever)" doesn't equate being greater.

And "being highly regarded" is a vague phrase to begin with.

The Talking Heads being regarded as "the best American rock band" is relevant to a particular circle. They were never at the stature of a band like The Beach Boys, and don't have their credentials which speak for themselves where the title is appropriate and true.

The Talking Heads might have been viewed as "America's best rock band" for a certain period by particular critics and fans, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily greater than Blondie or any other band of that period. You look at it from all angles.

But it's not always that simple as that is difficult to quantify at times. Many artists throughout history did/do not like to be pigeonholed.

The Beatles are a textbook example of how they wanted to experiment relentlessly yet were still able to be an essentially rock band even though some might disagree with this notion.

We need solid proof that a band like Chicago were actively trying to dispense with their rock roots, something like them saying, "Well, we wanted to go down the middle road of pop for our '80s material" or if they changed their style drastically to pure jazz, then that would make the situation as them to not being rock much stronger. But even there it's not that easy as the perception of what is rock and what isn't gets muddy. The band's '80s to present material gets played on "soft rock" stations to this day, for example. "Along Comes a Woman" was a Billboard mainstream rock chart hit in 1985. And then we have to remember that all sorts of rock artists became big stars on the adult contemporary circuit. What is considered "adult contemporary" has changed over the years and decades, form its humble beginnings as "easy listening" and other similar labels.

Also, we have to keep in mind about artists such as Chubby Checker who were not seeking to actively broaden their musical styles yet somehow found favor with other audiences (in this case, significantly with adults).

Then let's get the self-proclaimed "King of Pop" the hell off this list.

If this was a Greatest Artists of Western Popular Music list, I'd agree with you.

Whatever, man. Just stop putting "The" in front of their name.

Oh man, don't do that ...

Well, whatever man, too.



I usually like to use "The" if a band follows in plural form, regardless if they're not known with "The" in the title. Doesn't matter if it's a band from 1913 or a band from 2005. So even if I say "The Ramones" instead of "Ramones," you still get at who I'm referring to, and that's what matters.

Here's how the issue over Talking Heads impact can probably best be stated, without getting into the hyperbole on both sides:

It's not that they were ever universally regarded as the Best American Rock Band, since at that time especially there was no consensus even on what styles of rock were best - disco was most popular, but reviled by critics, punk was loved by critics because of its image but had little mainstream airplay compared to other styles, etc. - but rather there was a definite sense that Talking Heads were significantly better than their overall stature in music to the public at large, if that makes sense. In other words, the general belief was they were good enough to be bigger than they were, which is definately Musical Impact, so Clash is right to say they have a good deal of it. But I don't think there was quite the level of Impact to push them into the Top 100, or to get them above their contemporary rivals Blondie, who also had good Musical Impact but more Commercial and Cultural Impact and slightly more Influence.

As if you can gauge influence well enough for each artist to say that one had "slightly" more than another.

On a scale of 1 to 100, what do you have, the Heads at 65 and Blondie at 66.......ROFL.

Let's face it, if you polled musicians, or critics, or industry people, or whoever you want, you would not come close to getting a concensus on whether or not one big artist (Little Richard) was more influential than another big artist (The Who).

Even experts will disagree on shit like that, so it again comes down to personal opinion and preferences.

Johnny Otis said that Liitle Richard was twice as important as the Beatles and stones COMBINED.

How many would agree with that?