DDD Forum :: View topic - 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)

But Musical Impact isn't about what the older generation thinks. Greg Allman and John Entwistle were completely irrelevant as artists by the time rap was current,

Sinatra and Mitch Miller were not contemporaries of Presley and Berry and Domino, not in the same field as they were and therefore their rants were laughed at, just as their music was laughed at by the rock audience.

What matters is an artist's contemporaries, that's where the impact is felt.

The audience for The Stones Steel Wheels album at the end of the 80's (which was a huge seller and resulted in a massive tour) was generally not the same audience that was setting the pace in terms of current trends and tastes. The Stones huge audience cultivated over decades were the ones buying the album and concert tickets, but they were definitely not the ones who were charting the new course of music at that point. That audience had already done that back in the 65-72 era.

You have no idea what you are talking about here. Loads of guys who grew up on early rock and roll also liked Sinatra. They thought he was really cool and liked most of his 50s hits.

Bruce wrote:

You have no idea what you are talking about here. Loads of guys who grew up on early rock and roll also liked Sinatra. They thought he was really cool and liked most of his 50s hits.

My mom (who grew up with the Beatles, Stones, etc.) once commented that she was very surprised kids today listen to the same things she listened to. She said that she couldn't imagine anyone of her friends liking their parents' music. Basically, in terms of music, she thinks the generation gap was much bigger between her and her parents than kids today and their parents.

Personally, I think Jimmy Page was jealous of Pete Townshend. Just read this 1975 interview. And Jimmy Page cried so much about looking like he was opening for The Who in 2000 that he backed out of a four night stand Madison Square Garden double bill in 2000. Robert Plant didn't give a shit in 2002.

"It's not music, it's a disease" - Mitch Miller, on rock 'n' roll in the mid-50-'s.

The others also have high musical impact, but of them, Radiohead is the best example of an artist with a long period of musical impact.

ClashWho wrote:

I believe Jimmy Page had a back injury which caused him to pull out of that tour. Unless you think he invented it.

Brian wrote:

The others also have high musical impact, but of them, Radiohead is the best example of an artist with a long period of musical impact.

This is the main reason why I think Radiohead can go up in the next update.

Bruno wrote:

Brian wrote:

The others also have high musical impact, but of them, Radiohead is the best example of an artist with a long period of musical impact.

This is the main reason why I think Radiohead can go up in the next update.

They have some influence and some popularity, but not a lot of each compared to most of the artists in their part of the list. I don't know for sure right now, but I suspect that there are about as many artists behind them who should be ahead of them as there are artists ahead of them that should be behind them.

Brian, don't mistake longevity for being prolific in musical impact.

For example, Public Enemy put out four albums with significant impact over five years, but then diminished quickly. The Beasties seem to have more impact, because their major releases were spaced out over many more years. They took nine years to get their fourth album out, with those first four representing the bulk of their impact, and have four albums since then. Their four albums since '98 have probably created four new batches of glowing quotes about them, but were not very relevant as new music.

Author:	Bruce [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Sampson wrote: But Musical Impact isn't about what the older generation thinks. Greg Allman and John Entwistle were completely irrelevant as artists by the time rap was current, Bullshit. The Who had a top ten album in 1982. And could still sell out a stadium anytime they wanted to. Gregg Allman had a gold album in 1987. Sampson wrote: Sinatra and Mitch Miller were not contemporaries of Presley and Berry and Domino, not in the same field as they were and therefore their rants were laughed at, just as their music was laughed at by the rock audience. You have no idea what you are talking about here. Loads of guys who grew up on early rock and roll also liked Sinatra. They thought he was really cool and liked most of his 50s hits. Joe Turner was four years older than Sinatra. Sampson wrote: What matters is an artist's contemporaries, that's where the impact is felt. I don't agree with your opinion here. They all matter. If a rock legend like Entwistle or Richards thinks that rap sucks, that should be facotored in to what you call "impact." Besides, the Rollling Stones were certainly still relevant when rap first emerged. They had 6 platinum albums in the 1980s, including a double platinum album in 1989. And then a double platinum album that peaked at #2 in 1994.

Author:	Sampson [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
You're missing the point entirely. Musical eras are very shortlived, even if specific artists continue being popular over multiple eras. The reason for the rapid turnover in eras is because the audience changes while the prime hitmaking demographic for music remains pretty constant over time. So those things are at odds. The audience for The Stones Steel Wheels album at the end of the 80's (which was a huge seller and resulted in a massive tour) was generally not the same audience that was setting the pace in terms of current trends and tastes. The Stones huge audience cultivated over decades were the ones buying the album and concert tickets, but they were definitely not the ones who were charting the new course of music at that point. That audience had already done that back in the 65-72 era. Same with Sinatra. His records were still big sellers when rock came along but the primary audience for it were older, pre-rock era fans. There is a huge difference between the so-called catalog artists, whose core fanbase still buys their music, sees their shows and supports those acts, and current hitmakers who are shaping the sounds of the then-current generation. Older artists can definitely still have big hits because those fanbases can still be large, but they are mostly irrelevant to the current trends of music at the time. Those artists don't like being usurped and the reaction to the newer music, while obviously also based on taste, is also based largely on the fact that their once lofty position in the music world has been marginalized to a degree. It's the passage of time, it happens to everyone. It's why old ballplayers always rant about how the game was better in their day. Same insecurities, same exact criticisms.

Author:	Bruce [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Sampson wrote: The audience for The Stones Steel Wheels album at the end of the 80's (which was a huge seller and resulted in a massive tour) was generally not the same audience that was setting the pace in terms of current trends and tastes. The Stones huge audience cultivated over decades were the ones buying the album and concert tickets, but they were definitely not the ones who were charting the new course of music at that point. That audience had already done that back in the 65-72 era. MOST people going to see the Stones in 1989 were not old enough during 65-72 era to have charted any course of anything. I was not even aware of the Stones until 1968 when I turned 11 years old. I would have been 31-32 in 1989. Are you telling us that most people at those concerts were 35 or older? "Start Me Up" was humongous with 18-19 year olds in 1981 (born in 1963-64). I know, I was there playing the record in clubs that were packed with 800 eighteen-nineteen year olds in 1981-82. Those people would have been in their mid 20s in 1989 when they went to see the Stones. They certainly were not Stones fans in 1968 when they were still in diapers.

Author:	pgm [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Bruce wrote: You have no idea what you are talking about here. Loads of guys who grew up on early rock and roll also liked Sinatra. They thought he was really cool and liked most of his 50s hits. My mom (who grew up with the Beatles, Stones, etc.) once commented that she was very surprised kids today listen to the same things she listened to. She said that she couldn't imagine anyone of her friends liking their parents' music. Basically, in terms of music, she thinks the generation gap was much bigger between her and her parents than kids today and their parents.

Author:	Bruce [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
pgm wrote: Bruce wrote: You have no idea what you are talking about here. Loads of guys who grew up on early rock and roll also liked Sinatra. They thought he was really cool and liked most of his 50s hits. My mom (who grew up with the Beatles, Stones, etc.) once commented that she was very surprised kids today listen to the same things she listened to. She said that she couldn't imagine anyone of her friends liking their parents' music. Basically, in terms of music, she thinks the generation gap was much bigger between her and her parents than kids today and their parents. I never said that the people who liked the Beatles and Stones as teenagers also liked Sinatra. I said that many of the teenagers who liked Fats Domino, Elvis and the Drifters and Platters in the 50s also liked Sinatra. In your mother's case, that's because her parents did not like ANY rock and roll. They probably grew up in the 40s with Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby, etc....they could never relate to the Rolling Stones. But people who grew up with the Rolling Stones can relate to Aerosmith and U2, and vice versa,'

DDD Forum https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/

100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=259	Page 273 of 457

Author:	Sampson [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
The gap has definitely grown smaller over time, but the point is the current TRENDS in music, the very thing we're talking about, is rarely set by older artists. There are always handful of major acts who maintain incredible popularity over time - Presley was still churning out hits late in his career, the Stones were decades after beginning, etc. - but the direction of the music is almost always led by younger newer artists and the reaction to those new acts by other current acts of the same generation forms the core of musical impact. It's not that the other older artists views don't matter at all, but they're not on the cutting edge of things, they're no longer charting the course that the music is going to take. Presley's disdain for the Beatles in the mid-60's means far less than The Beach Boys or Byrds praise for them, because they were the group's contemporaries, their rivals. Presley was yesterday's news by then, still popular enough to get people to see his inspid movies and buy the lame soundtracks that went with it, but they weren't in the same ring anymore. He was definitely feeling hurt that they had overtaken him in stature. When tons of people went to see the Steel Wheels tour in '89, me among them, the Stones were a conglomerate by that point, someone with huge name recognition that seemed like an event to go see, but they had no effect on the current trends in rock at the time. In the early 70's Chuck Berry had a #1 hit, Richard Nader was putting on 50's Rock Revival Shows that were selling out Madison Square Garden, but those artists weren't relevant to new listeners of that era (other than one strange kid in Jersey). They were nostaligia for aging (but still relatively young 30ish) baby boomers who could afford to go, wanted to relive their youth and enjoy the music. Nothing wrong with that, but Berry or Jerry Lee Lewis (a few hits) or Bill Haley (RATC recharting in 74 when used in Happy Days) were no longer relevant to current rock 'n' roll (other than through another area of the criteria, influence, better suited for evaluating this aspect, which is why it is a seperate thing). So their opinions on Led Zeppelin, Stevie Wonder, Elton John and The Rolling Stones at that point weren't exactly causing any waves, other than appearing, as McMurphy said, to be the rants of "closed minded and bitter old fogies". The fans of that earlier era naturally agreed with them and saw that as validatation that this "new" music sucked, but their views on the newer rock 'n' roll of 1972 was no more important than Sinatra's views on the young Elvis Presley and no more meaningful than Richards, Allman and Entwistle's criticsm of rap fifteen years down the road. Music moves on and to past generations it's never as good as their era.

Author:	Georgi [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
ClashWho wrote: Personally, I think Jimmy Page was jealous of Pete Townshend. Just read this 1975 interview. And Jimmy Page cried so much about looking like he was opening for The Who in 2000 that he backed out of a four night stand Madison Square Garden double bill in 2000. Robert Plant didn't give a shit in 2002. I believe Jimmy Page had a back injury which caused him to pull out of that tour. Unless you think he invented it.

Author:	Bruce [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Sampson wrote: "It's not music, it's a disease" - Mitch Miller, on rock 'n' roll in the mid-50-'s. That is a fucking great line by Mitch.

Author:	Bruno [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Brian wrote: The others also have high musical impact, but of them, Radiohead is the best example of an artist with a long period of musical impact. This is the main reason why I think Radiohead can go up in the next update.

Author:	Bruce [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
I just listed this item on EBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/190690567380?ss ... 1558.l2649 In there is a list of the top ten artists of 1964 in 17 different countries outisde of the USA, based on the Billboard singles and album chart for each of those countries. SOME HIGHLIGHTS ARGENTINA 3 - Beatles 6 - Tammys AUSTRALIA 1 - Beatles 2 - Billy Thorpe and Aztecs (are they on your 60s list Sampson?) 3 - Brian Poole and Tremeloes 4 - Dave Clark 5 5 - Roy Orbison 6 - Cliff Richard 7 - Kathy McCormack 8 - Cilla Black 9 - Elvis 10 - Beach Boys BELGIUM (Flemish) 2 - Trini Lopez 4 - Beatles 5 - Elvis 7 - Chubby Checker 10 - Roy Orbison BELGIUM (French) 8 - Johnny Hallyday EIRE 1 - Jim Reeves 2 - Bachelors 3 - Beatles 6 - Brian Poole and Tremeloes 7 - Rolling Stones 8 - Roy Orbison 10 - Cilla Black GERMANY 4 - Beatles 5 - Paul Anka 9 - Millie Small HONK KONG 1 - Beatles 2 - Fabulous Echoes 3 - Elvis 5 - Ventures 6 - Pat Boone (in nineteen sixty fucking four?) 7 - Shadows 8 - Andy Williams 9 - Cliff Richard 10 - Louis Armstrong ITALY 3 - Beatles 9 - Gene Pitney JAPAN 3 - Village Stompers 6 - Atronauts 10 - Gus Backus MEXICO 2 - Beatles 6 - Trini Lopez NETHERLANDS 1 - Beatles 3 - Cliff Richard 5 - Trino Lopez 7 - Rolling Stones 8 - Johnny Hallyday NORWAY 1 - Beatles 2 - Jim Reeves 4 - Cliff Richard 5 - Swingin' Blue Jeans 6 - Elvis 9 - Millie Small 10 - Louis Armstrong PERU 2 - Beatles PHILIPPINES 1 - Elvis 2 - Robert Goulet 4 - Matt Monro 5 - Doris Day 6 - Beatles 8 - Tony Bennett 9 - Jack Jones 10 - Andy Williams 10 - Steve Allen (tie) SOUTH AFRICA 1 - Beatles 2 - Cliff Richard 3 - Elvis 5 - Millie Small 6 - Chubby Checker 7 - Jim Reeves 8 - Four Pennies 9 - Dale & Grace 10 - Louis Armstrong SPAIN 2 - Trini Lopez 4 - Rita Pavone 5 - Paul Anka 7 - Beatles 8 - Charles Aznavour UNITED KINGDOM 1 - Beatles 2 - Bachelors 3 - Rolling Stones 4 - Jim Reeves 5 - Cilla Black 6 - Dave Clark 5 7 - Searchers 8 - Cliff Richard 9 - Hollies 10 - Roy Orbison

Author:	ClashWho [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Georgi wrote: ClashWho wrote: Personally, I think Jimmy Page was jealous of Pete Townshend. Just read this 1975 interview. And Jimmy Page cried so much about looking like he was opening for The Who in 2000 that he backed out of a four night stand Madison Square Garden double bill in 2000. Robert Plant didn't give a shit in 2002. I believe Jimmy Page had a back injury which caused him to pull out of that tour. Unless you think he invented it. That was the excuse he used, yes. Yes, I think he invented it. I bought tickets to those shows. Jimmy Page and the Black Crows were to be the first set, followed by The Who. Jimmy Page was so insecure about appearing to be the opening act, and potentially playing to a slowly filling arena more eager to see The Who, that he actually demanded that the venue put out a press release stating that no one would be admitted after the 8pm start time. He wanted to make sure all the butts were in the seats when he took the stage. The blow-back on that was huge. Can you imagine paying $200 for a ticket and being told you can't enter because you were five minutes late? Or even thirty minutes late? You can do that for a Broadway show, but not a rock concert in a sports arena. Days later Page backed out of the concerts entirely, citing his back. Those were the only dates he missed. It's not hard to figure out what that was really about. The Wallflowers ended up replacing them. It was a shame. I was really looking forward to seeing him. Now that I think about it, I think that's where my resentment of Led Zeppelin began. It's all Jimmy Page's fault!

Author:	Brian [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Bruno wrote: Brian wrote: The others also have high musical impact, but of them, Radiohead is the best example of an artist with a long period of musical impact. This is the main reason why I think Radiohead can go up in the next update. They have some influence and some popularity, but not a lot of each compared to most of the artists in their part of the list. I don't know for sure right now, but I suspect that there are about as many artists behind them who should be ahead of them as there are artists ahead of them that should be behind them.

Author:	Bruno [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Brian wrote: Bruno wrote: Brian wrote: The others also have high musical impact, but of them, Radiohead is the best example of an artist with a long period of musical impact. This is the main reason why I think Radiohead can go up in the next update. They have some influence and some popularity, but not a lot of each compared to most of the artists in their part of the list. I don't know for sure right now, but I suspect that there are about as many artists behind them who should be ahead of them as there are artists ahead of them that should be behind them. Which artists? I think Radiohead's influence is a little underrated.

Author:	Eric Wood [ Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Brian, don't mistake longevity for being prolific in musical impact. For example, Public Enemy put out four albums with significant impact over five years, but then diminished quickly. The Beasties seem to have more impact, because their major releases were spaced out over many more years. They took nine years to get their fourth album out, with those first four representing the bulk of their impact, and have four albums since then. Their four albums since '98 have probably created four new batches of glowing quotes about them, but were not very relevant as new music. Also don't underestimate the crossover impact PE had. "Well I got tapes, I got CDs I got my Public Enemy And my lilly white ass is tickled pink When I listen to the music that makes me think" -Some RHCP song. Anyways, I'm still going to maintain that "musical impact" should try to measure the degree of passion of the response more so than the degree of positivity. I think the negative response to rap from the classic rockers is part of the legacy of those early rappers. Sampson's logic for negating or ignoring that negative response is unnecessary. (It also raises the question of just how narrow a thing we're trying to measure in musical impact. We count only positive responses, only from contemporary musicians, meaning we can only reasonably expect dozens of voices figuring in, and this is given equal weight to cultural impact, which represents changing the attitudes, beliefs and behavior of millions of people.) To put it another way, the short-term and long-term response of the audience is put together in commercial impact, while the short-term and long-term response of other musicians is twice as important, getting both musical impact and influence. And I don't even know how or where Brian or Sampson measure commercial influence (changing the way music is sold), which it seems to me is one of the most important things to measure.

Page 273 of 457	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Brian [ Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)
Eric Wood wrote: Brian, don't mistake longevity for being prolific in musical impact. For example, Public Enemy put out four albums with significant impact over five years, but then diminished quickly. The Beasties seem to have more impact, because their major releases were spaced out over many more years. They took nine years to get their fourth album out, with those first four representing the bulk of their impact, and have four albums since then. Their four albums since '98 have probably created four new batches of glowing quotes about them, but were not very relevant as new music. Yes, it probably is better to think of musical impact in terms of amount of material causing the impact rather than length of time. One wouldn't want to give extra credit for releasing material slowly.