DDD Forum :: View topic - 600 Greatest Rock Songs

Well, most musical influence that "RATC" has either goes back to the original version of the song (Sonny Dae and the Knights) or to Haley's version of "Rock The Joint" which has the same musical atributes and the exact same guitar break.

I'd say that RATC wins initial popularity easily, but that JBG wins lasting popularity pretty easily now in 2013, wins acclaim pretty easily, and (I think) wins influence, especially since Haley did not do the original version of the song, and was essentially just updating his version of "Rock The Joint."

But RTJ was not a hit and was released at a time when no other white artists were doing rock,

Brett Alan wrote:

Influence means having an effect on someone else's decisions--in this context, on their musical decisions.

Yes, but "having an effect" is a pretty vague definition that's open to interpretation, dont you think? I dont see what makes your method any more credible than Sampson's.

Brett Alan wrote:

That's the point. The goal is to find an accurate assessment of influence, not to find something that's easy to quantify and evaluate.

By that logic, though, there would be no difference between influence and popularity, if they're synonymous with each other.

Brett Alan wrote:

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm saying that the Beatles, Beach Boys, and Stones were more influenced by Berry's recordings than the first generation was. What distinction are you making that I'm missing?

I think you just misunderstood what Sampson meant, I think was referring to the first generation of artists who copied Berry and showed a developmental influence from him, which would refer more to the 60's artists.

There are really two things, at odds with one another here, that we seem to be butting heads over. The criteria-based list and the perception based. I think the top of your list is more perception based and for that it is very good. But if you're using criteria, which you claim, I think the songs that clearly win in it are not being credited with it, even though they are all very high, maybe even higher than previous "perception based lists" here.

Side note to Brett Alan, for the record, I was referring to "first generation" as in first generation to come AFTER Berry, which would really be like the third or fourth generation of rock itself, as Berry was definitely NOT a first generation rocker by any means.

By the way, "Back To The Future" was a WAY more popular movie than "American Graffiti." The box office was 383 million to 140 million.

Bruce wrote:

By the way, "Back To The Future" was a WAY more popular movie than "American Graffiti." The box office was 383 million to 140 million.

That's wrong.

All-time Box Office (USA) adjusted for inflation

44 American Graffiti Uni. $529,000,000 1973

61 Back to the Future Uni. $475,357,700 1985

ClashWho wrote:

Bruce wrote:

By the way, "Back To The Future" was a WAY more popular movie than "American Graffiti." The box office was 383 million to 140 million.

That's wrong.

All-time Box Office (USA) adjusted for inflation

44 American Graffiti Uni. $529,000,000 1973

61 Back to the Future Uni. $475,357,700 1985

Those movies were not that far apart.

Bruce wrote:

ClashWho wrote:

Bruce wrote:

By the way, "Back To The Future" was a WAY more popular movie than "American Graffiti." The box office was 383 million to 140 million.

That's wrong.

All-time Box Office (USA) adjusted for inflation

44 American Graffiti Uni. $529,000,000 1973

61 Back to the Future Uni. $475,357,700 1985

Those movies were not that far apart.

Correct. One is #44 All-Time and the other is #61 All-Time. So saying "Back to the Future" is "a WAY more popular movie" than "American Graffiti" is wrong. Especially since it's "American Graffiti" at #44.

In regard to the new 500 songs list, I recommend replacing something like Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" with Talking Heads' "Once in a Lifetime".

Yes, there may be a case for adding OiaL, but I wouldn't want to drop "Wish", which in addition to acclaim, has a lot of lasting popularity.

ClashWho wrote:

Bruce wrote:

Those movies were not that far apart.

When I said "not that far apart" I meant in the years that they were released. You don't get 300% inflation over a 12 year period.

Author:	Sampson [ Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Bruce wrote: Well, most musical influence that "RATC" has either goes back to the original version of the song (Sonny Dae and the Knights) or to Haley's version of "Rock The Joint" which has the same musical atributes and the exact same guitar break. I'd say that RATC wins initial popularity easily, but that JBG wins lasting popularity pretty easily now in 2013, wins acclaim pretty easily, and (I think) wins influence, especially since Haley did not do the original version of the song, and was essentially just updating his version of "Rock The Joint." Here's the last point I'll make and then drop it if you want. You just stated there that you downplay RATC's influence because the song itself was a remake (though I'm sure you know it was given to Haley to record FIRST and Essex wouldn't let them cut it, so he had to wait until he got to Decca, allowing the other record to be made first) and that Haley's "Rock The Joint" has the same musical attributes and used the same guitar lick. All of which are good points and why, particularly with the latter, I would give it SECONDARY influence (for those attributes). But RTJ was not a hit and was released at a time when no other white artists were doing rock, nor was there any sizeable white audience for it, so the exposure to that was minimal. By the time of RATC the overall size of the audience expanded greatly, and the demographics changed considerably, and the number of rock acts appearing did as well, so RATC brought those earlier attibutes to a much wider audience where the influence of it spread. Pretty simply to follow. An innovation is the most important thing, because it creates something new, so it gets primary influence and deserves the most credit, since innovation is far more difficult to achieve, whereas the spreading of it is what allows it to impact future records (secondary influence) which wouldn't be possible without the first. making it less important, but still enough so that it needs to be credited. Whether or not you agree with how I do it, I think you can at least see what it's attempting to do - properly credit both things for influencing the future sounds of rock in a way that can be fairly easily proven. Well, with "Johnny B. Goode" it didn't innovate anything musically. The original guitar lick was taken directly from Carl Hogan's work on Louis Jordan's "Ain't That Just Like A Woman". Therefore, by your OWN description of RATC losing influence to "Rock The Joint" for using the same lick, the same HAS to be done here, otherwise you're being contradictory and hypocritcal. As for the arrangement, "Roll Over Beethoven", released two years earlier to JBG, had the same arrangement. Since ROB appears on the list at #129 I'm ASSUMING it's getting influence credit. Well what's its influence for then? A good deal of it has to be the arrangement, since it clearly influenced future arrangements, including JBG. Yet if you then give JBG a maximum amount of influence you've just said that two records can get the same (?) influence (assuming ROB would get a five, which it must since it was a much lesser hit and still cracks the Top 130) for the exact same thing! That makes no sense. Would you give a Beach Boys song like "Fun Fun Fun" the same maximum influence for the same arrangement and lick that was already done multiple times before, since there must've been hordes of listeners and young artists who heard that first, or liked it more, than the earlier Berry examples? I don't think you'd do that in that case, but that's exactly what you're doing here by giving ALL of the influence to JBG because it has become so big in subsequent years and simply ASSUMING that it was the record which caused someone to pick up a guitar, even pointing to the U.K. who didn't hear them all originally. Yet JBG never charted in the UK! It's fairly obvious that you've tried to bolster JBG's case for #1 by saying that since Berry is massively influtential (no argument) and he's influential for the guitar parts, and the arrangements (again, no argument), that since JBG has become to be seen as his definitive song then that deserves ALL of the influence for those things. But you can't do that because each individual song stands alone since they are being compared and ranked against OTHER individual songs, including others by Berry such as "Roll Over Beethoven", which you've ALSO credited for being influential for the same things. Both can't get the same amount for the same things, and the second one in line chronologically can't get MORE than the originator of it, so you've created a mess by not having a system in place to fairly credit them in a way that can be more definitively proven. All of your answers to my earlier questions are pure speculation and that doesn't stand up in court. Criticize my method of figuring influence all you want, but it's at least defensible. Find the record where something originated, credit it with primary influence. Find the point (or points, multiple examples that each spread something a little bit farther than before, can be used) and credit those with varying degrees of secondary influence. In RATC's case, that would get enormous secondary influence because it was the jumping off point in terms of familiarity for something that previously was not heard much in the mainstream. For JBG it would definitely get secondary influence for spreading that further (be it Hogan's lick or ROB's arrangement) but it would be less so because of the greater popularity of the original examples. That's all I've been trying to say. You can give it primary influence for the lyrical topic as well, but overall its influence can't possibly be on par with the most influential records ever because it simply wasn't innovative enough. That's the difference and that was all I was trying to say before you tried getting nasty as a last defense.

Author:	Bruce [ Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Sampson wrote: But RTJ was not a hit and was released at a time when no other white artists were doing rock, Never heard of Johnny Otis? I assume you saw my Paul Mccartney quote nwhere mentions only "JBG" when he talks about Chuck Berry, and there's also the great lyrical breakthrough and influence of "JBG" which was described in essays that I posted here. Although I'm not a lyric fan myself, I recognize that most rock fans are. Lastly, "JBG" is a much more popular song in 2013 than "RATC." We're moving towards the future here, not staying in the past. If DDD was around in 1985 "RATC" would had to have been the choice. In all those years that you were advising Lew on this list how come you never even got him to put "RATC" in the top ten, let alone change the number one song? In your opinion, which records have a reasonable case to be number one on this list, depending upon how you weight the different parts of the criteria? Most all time lists now have "Like A Rolling Stone" (RS list, aclaimedmusic) or "Grapevine" (Marsh) or "Satisfaction" or "Stairway" as the number one song. I've even seen "Thriller" or "Billie Jean" listed at number one on dome lists.

Author:	Sampson [ Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
I wasn't advising Lew on the list, if I were RATC would've been #1, not because I like it best either, but because in the criteria it does the best. The popularity, particularly in relation to the era when rock songs were not routinely hitting the upper reaches of the Pop Chart, the fact that it DID re-chart twice (once, bubbling under in the 60's... and I'm very curious as to WHY it did in '68...) and then again in '74 (for obvious reasons, Happy Days). The fact that it led to the full-fledged rock 'n' roll era, that was the clarion call for rock breaking through. Its historical impact is far and away the highest of any song for a variety of reasons, many of them due to timing and use in Blackboard Jungle, but that's part of history, that's what CHANGED history and has to be credited. The more well rounded a criteria is, the more songs that are lacking in one area, even if they are seen as being universally definitive rock songs (JBG, Satisfaction, Respect) are going to suffer a little. If you eliminate or downplay the area of the criteria they fall behind in, so that they don't have to, then other songs that make the list further down, but by excelling in that area alone, are going to be left out altogether. That's why the criteria is so vital in establishing the list. Does it take ALL ways a song can make an impact into account? Does it inherantly favor one era or style over another (lasting popularity, for example, if used too much, is going to wipe out most of the first two generations of rock 1948-1954, because white people weren't really aware of it yet and they fuel longterm views too much). Everything has to be reasonably balanced to come to a justifiable conclusion. Like A Rolling Stone is another that could challenge at #1 with this criteria, as is Good Vibrations, maybe one or two others. They have both initial and lasting popularity, influence and historical impact and aren't lacking badly in any area. By the time we get to the 70's and later, with the formatting of rock radio, the lessening reliance on singles sales, and the passage of time where the big landscape altering events due to music are fewer and fewer, because the biggest changes have already taken place, the less songs would qualify. That's when you go to the above songs, like Johnny B. Goode or Respect or Satisfaction, all of which are probably more emblematic of rock as a whole than some who do better in the criteria. There are really two things, at odds with one another here, that we seem to be butting heads over. The criteria-based list and the perception based. I think the top of your list is more perception based and for that it is very good. But if you're using criteria, which you claim, I think the songs that clearly win in it are not being credited with it, even though they are all very high, maybe even higher than previous "perception based lists" here. On the whole, the list is great, we're just just down to semantics probably. I even saw that you had even asked for my help when you guys were revising this, but I wasn't around enough at that time to take part, otherwise I would've brought this up then. Maybe then it wouldn't have become argumentative either, (as things tend to with you in general here), but also once the work has been done, it gets posted and then it seems to be me criticizing the results and all the hard work you pit in, which wasn't my intent. So anyway, it wasn't critical, more questioning, which I definitely see would've been more suited for behind the scenes, private exchanges when the list was being made. My apologies for not taking part then. Side note to Brett Alan, for the record, I was referring to "first generation" as in first generation to come AFTER Berry, which would really be like the third or fourth generation of rock itself, as Berry was definitely NOT a first generation rocker by any means.

Author:	Brett Alan [ Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Negative Creep wrote: Brett Alan wrote: Influence means having an effect on someone else's decisions--in this context, on their musical decisions. Yes, but "having an effect" is a pretty vague definition that's open to interpretation, dont you think? I dont see what makes your method any more credible than Sampson's. The definition is what it is (from dictionaries). Yes, it's hard to define, but I'm trying to keep focus on those effects. Negative Creep wrote: Brett Alan wrote: That's the point. The goal is to find an accurate assessment of influence, not to find something that's easy to quantify and evaluate. By that logic, though, there would be no difference between influence and popularity, if they're synonymous with each other. Yes. The logic is supposed to be faulty. I wasn't making an argument, I was doing a reductio ad absurdum of Sampson's position. That is, I was trying to show why the argument that applying the critieria in a certain way is better because it's more quantifiable is a bad argument. Negative Creep wrote: Brett Alan wrote: I'm not sure what your point is. I'm saying that the Beatles, Beach Boys, and Stones were more influenced by Berry's recordings than the first generation was. What distinction are you making that I'm missing? I think you just misunderstood what Sampson meant, I think was referring to the first generation of artists who copied Berry and showed a developmental influence from him, which would refer more to the 60's artists. Ah. Now I see. OK. Thanks.

Author:	Brett Alan [ Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Sampson wrote: There are really two things, at odds with one another here, that we seem to be butting heads over. The criteria-based list and the perception based. I think the top of your list is more perception based and for that it is very good. But if you're using criteria, which you claim, I think the songs that clearly win in it are not being credited with it, even though they are all very high, maybe even higher than previous "perception based lists" here. Just throwing out a thought here, but perhaps if there's something "perception based" which is affecting us (and I'm not necessarily convinced there is), perhaps we should be including that IN the criteria.

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

600 Greatest Rock Songs https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11	Page 95 of 177

Author:	Negative Creep [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:34 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Sampson wrote: Side note to Brett Alan, for the record, I was referring to "first generation" as in first generation to come AFTER Berry, which would really be like the third or fourth generation of rock itself, as Berry was definitely NOT a first generation rocker by any means. He wasn't? How do you figure? Considering that he broke out in 1955, rock had only been established for....what....about five years or so? I'd definitely call that a first generation rocker.

Author:	ClashWho [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Bruce wrote: By the way, "Back To The Future" was a WAY more popular movie than "American Graffiti." The box office was 383 million to 140 million. That's wrong. All-time Box Office (USA) adjusted for inflation 44 American Graffiti Uni. $529,000,000 1973 61 Back to the Future Uni. $475,357,700 1985

Author:	Bruce [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
ClashWho wrote: Bruce wrote: By the way, "Back To The Future" was a WAY more popular movie than "American Graffiti." The box office was 383 million to 140 million. That's wrong. All-time Box Office (USA) adjusted for inflation 44 American Graffiti Uni. $529,000,000 1973 61 Back to the Future Uni. $475,357,700 1985 Those movies were not that far apart. "Future" did almost three times as much. Inflation was not 300% in 12 years.

Author:	ClashWho [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Bruce wrote: ClashWho wrote: Bruce wrote: By the way, "Back To The Future" was a WAY more popular movie than "American Graffiti." The box office was 383 million to 140 million. That's wrong. All-time Box Office (USA) adjusted for inflation 44 American Graffiti Uni. $529,000,000 1973 61 Back to the Future Uni. $475,357,700 1985 Those movies were not that far apart. Correct. One is #44 All-Time and the other is #61 All-Time. So saying "Back to the Future" is "a WAY more popular movie" than "American Graffiti" is wrong. Especially since it's "American Graffiti" at #44.

Author:	ClashWho [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
In regard to the new 500 songs list, I recommend replacing something like Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" with Talking Heads' "Once in a Lifetime".

Author:	Bruce [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
ClashWho wrote: Bruce wrote: ClashWho wrote: Bruce wrote: By the way, "Back To The Future" was a WAY more popular movie than "American Graffiti." The box office was 383 million to 140 million. That's wrong. All-time Box Office (USA) adjusted for inflation 44 American Graffiti Uni. $529,000,000 1973 61 Back to the Future Uni. $475,357,700 1985 Those movies were not that far apart. Correct. One is #44 All-Time and the other is #61 All-Time. So saying "Back to the Future" is "a WAY more popular movie" than "American Graffiti" is wrong. Especially since it's "American Graffiti" at #44. When I said "not that far apart" I meant in the years that they were released. You don't get 300% inflation over a 12 year period.

Author:	Bruce [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
ClashWho wrote: In regard to the new 500 songs list, I recommend replacing something like Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" with Talking Heads' "Once in a Lifetime". "Wish You Were Here" is #316 on the Rolling Stone top 500, there's no Talking Heads on that list, although they do have a couple on the Rock & Roll HOF 500 songs that shaped rock and roll list. You may have a good point though because "Lifetime" is #121 of all time on acclaimedmusic.net with "Wish You Were Here" #171. Maybe "Lifetime" belongs on the list somewhere but not necessarily in place of "Wish."

Author:	Brian [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Yes, there may be a case for adding OiaL, but I wouldn't want to drop "Wish", which in addition to acclaim, has a lot of lasting popularity.

Author:	Brett Alan [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Brian wrote: Yes, there may be a case for adding OiaL, but I wouldn't want to drop "Wish", which in addition to acclaim, has a lot of lasting popularity. "Once In A Lifetime" is only #82 on the 80s list, which isn't really commensurate with a top 500 placement. Then again, it may be that the problem is it's too low on the 80s list.

Page 95 of 177	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Brett Alan [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Rock Songs
Bruce wrote: ClashWho wrote: Bruce wrote: Those movies were not that far apart. Correct. One is #44 All-Time and the other is #61 All-Time. So saying "Back to the Future" is "a WAY more popular movie" than "American Graffiti" is wrong. Especially since it's "American Graffiti" at #44. When I said "not that far apart" I meant in the years that they were released. You don't get 300% inflation over a 12 year period. You're using worldwide figures; Clash is using inflation-adjusted US figures. BttF did a lot better overseas, partly because the movie industry had more of a worldwide reach in 1985, and partly because AG is more dialogue-based and more specifically American in culture.