DDD Forum :: View topic - 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)

Negative Creep wrote:

Pantera and Metallica were the biggest bands out there at the moment.

Sippe wrote:

In terms if influence and importance of future music, I think the 60s is unbeatable atm.

Same here.

Bands like Dream Theater would come out in 90's and popularize progressive metal as it is known today.

KeithMoonIsGod wrote:

I'm only 16, but I think there era of music we're in now is one of the worst. I'd give anything to have been a teen in the 60s or 70s. My friends think it's weird that I don't like "modern" music... AKA - shit...

me and you both, I'm in band where everyone likes 90's and 00's music, and I'm literally the ONLY one who is stuck in the best era ever, all my friends think I'm weird too, I want to either go back in time, or I should start a band with the mission of reviving the style of 'classic rock', aka tasteful rock that takes blues and jazz to points of complex and beautiful composition

Wow, some great arguements there, guys. I was so glad to see that there was an alive discussion here. Anyway, now you're all being subjective and biased. There can never be one decade which is objectively better than another.

Yes, I get that you don't like 90's, you talked about it in Rock Songs & Artists-thread already for too long. That was some of the most biased shit ever read. :lol:

So just because DT were influenced by Yes, King Crimson and Emerson, Lake and Palmer they aren't influental at all? :lol:

They are the most important progressive metal act there is, the end of funny story.

if sam cooke is a "rock vocalist" then many more soul

blues/gospel singers need to be included

the fuck lonnie johnson and billy eckstine at?

what genres of music are included under the banner "rock"

Author:	Classic Rock Junkie [ Mon May 16, 2011 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
Timitzii wrote: Negative Creep wrote: Pantera and Metallica were the biggest bands out there at the moment. Metallica has never reached the height or genius they had with RtL and MoP, don't care what you say, and both were early 80's Negative Creep wrote: Sippe wrote: In terms if influence and importance of future music, I think the 60s is unbeatable atm. Same here. me too

Author:	Classic Rock Junkie [ Mon May 16, 2011 4:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
Timitzii wrote: Bands like Dream Theater would come out in 90's and popularize progressive metal as it is known today. Perfect example of why the other decades were so much better, and what Creep is saying. Being the decade where the bands were formed and the music style was invented IS what matters. Why? Because saying 'the 90's were a big deal because it was the definitive years for metal' is stupid. It is called the natural evolution of music, if the metal bands that came out in the 80's happened in the 70's, the 90's metal would have happened in the 80's. All genres are bound to evolve, fall, stagnate, and evolve. All genre's follow a musical evolution path, and that path is determined by exploration of the genre, not what time it happened. However, if a new genre randomly spawns or is created in a certain decade, it will then follow that path as well, therefore, the most important time for any genre and when it should be attributed to is it's formative decade. Grunge belongs to the 90's, metal is 70's/80's. Dream Theater is a 90's prog band, but they borrowed nearly everything from Yes, KC, and ELP. Honestly, when I listen to Images and Words and then Relayer or Fragile, I notice unspeakable similarities. Saying '90's were important to prog because Dream Theater came around' is utter bullshit. Dream Theater is one of my favorite bands, but would have come around in the 80's or 70's had prog started any earlier, because it was just a natural progression, it was nothing new and was bound to happen sometime. I was talking to my Mom while writing this so this might not make as much sense as I want it to, but pretty much: Formative and creative years of a genre define the genre, any future decades cannot be claimed to that genre because it would have evolved that way anyways given the time, regardless of when it started.

Author:	Sippe [ Mon May 16, 2011 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
Calm down man I don't agree with Tim about a lot of the bands he has mentioned for the 90s, but I still stand for that they have lots of influential, progressive and groundbreaking music to offer. I will return on the subject after some more research

Author:	KeithMoonIsGod [ Mon May 16, 2011 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
Alright! Alright! Let's just get back to the vocalists like Timi said!

Author:	KeithMoonIsGod [ Mon May 16, 2011 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
Classic Rock Junkie wrote: KeithMoonIsGod wrote: I'm only 16, but I think there era of music we're in now is one of the worst. I'd give anything to have been a teen in the 60s or 70s. My friends think it's weird that I don't like "modern" music... AKA - shit... me and you both, I'm in band where everyone likes 90's and 00's music, and I'm literally the ONLY one who is stuck in the best era ever, all my friends think I'm weird too, I want to either go back in time, or I should start a band with the mission of reviving the style of 'classic rock', aka tasteful rock that takes blues and jazz to points of complex and beautiful composition Well, at my school I'm one of the few who aren't big into the modern music. One of my best friend just has an AWFULL taste in music. Some of the modern music he listens to is just terrible noise... But I'm well know at my school as "That Socttish guy who's obsessed with 'old-people music'" Old people music

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

100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision) https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2	Page 67 of 249

Author:	Wanted Dead Or Alive [ Mon May 16, 2011 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
Wow, some great arguements there, guys. I was so glad to see that there was an alive discussion here. Anyway, now you're all being subjective and biased. There can never be one decade which is objectively better than another.

Author:	Classic Rock Junkie [ Tue May 17, 2011 11:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
Timitzii wrote: Yes, I get that you don't like 90's, you talked about it in Rock Songs & Artists-thread already for too long. That was some of the most biased shit ever read. clearly you don't get it, because I DO like the 90's. And my posts being 'the most bias I've ever written' is true, but I'd say it's around the same bias as your comments about the 80's, maybe mine are a wee bit more bias though Timitzii wrote: So just because DT were influenced by Yes, King Crimson and Emerson, Lake and Palmer they aren't influental at all? They are the most important progressive metal act there is, the end of funny story. Are you saying they are the most influential prog act around NOW? Which is true. If you are saying EVER, that is false. And yeah, those posts were...not my best in getting across what I was trying to say, I was not really concentrating while writing them, but whatever the message was meant to be, I know I still have it for the future, if I must write it better. Either way, I think that ties up all loose ends in the 90's discussion, so, vocalists?

Author:	Patrick [ Tue May 17, 2011 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvJGQ_pi ... re=related metal as fuck

Author:	Patrick [ Tue May 17, 2011 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
--from 1969, nigger. metal's been around since hendrix, basically, and if you peep sabbath's beginnings as a protest rock band you can see how our current notion of "metal" (like slayer and then a bunch of pussy slayer wanna bes) really fucking sucks and how "metal" in the sixties and seventies was much more experimental, easy to listen to, and a generally awesome evolution of music at the time. back on track, if sam cooke is a "rock vocalist" then many more soul/blues/gospel singers need to be included and we need to kick all these shitty metal singers off i mean cmon the guy from queensryche? fuck that. the fuck lonnie johnson and billy eckstine at?

Author:	pauldrach [ Tue May 17, 2011 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
Patrick wrote: if sam cooke is a "rock vocalist" then many more soul yes Patrick wrote: blues/gospel singers need to be included no Patrick wrote: the fuck lonnie johnson and billy eckstine at? Johnson is blues, Eckstine is vocal jazz. Both may have had an influence on soul vocalists but neither of the two is rock.

Author:	Patrick [ Tue May 17, 2011 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
what genres of music are included under the banner "rock" and is this signers in this genre or is it a specific type of singing that makes oen a "rock vocalist" -- in considering a rock vocalist do we consider a person's entire catalog and singing ability, or only the performances that fit into a "rock" format?

Author:	pauldrach [ Tue May 17, 2011 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
Patrick wrote: what genres of music are included under the banner "rock" Every genre that uses late 1940's/early 1950's R&B or any lineal offshoot of it as its main ingredient.

Author:	Patrick [ Tue May 17, 2011 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
so louis jordan qualifies but eckstine does not qualify enough? i feel as though this is a blurry line -- also, if a singer is in a "rock genre" but does use another style of singing (e.g. mercury) does this stll qualify?

Author:	Patrick [ Tue May 17, 2011 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 100 Greatest Male Rock Vocalists (Under Revision)
also how the fuck is otis redding so low?

Page 67 of 249	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/