Greatest Rock Artists Of The 1960's

Musicfan67 · **Joined:** Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:44 am **Posts:** 402

Sampson wrote:

Musicfan67,
Try not to ask for explanations for rankings right off the bat without first making an attempt to apply the criteria to determine for yourself where those rankings came from. The results of the Supremes/Stones/Dylan "showdown" are quite obvious and not really arguable when you do the required work.

As for acclaimedmusic.net's rankings, in case you weren't aware they are based solely on critics and writers opinions, and compiled from magazines and other outlets that are marketed to be sold to a very narrow and specific demographic of like-minded "music fans" who get basically what they expect to see in those publications and who pay their money to read consenting views that were written largely to appeal to their readership's tastes. This is very well known across the industry and why acclaimedmusic.net isn't really taken seriously by anybody in music. It's not that those running the site are biased themselves in any way, but their sources represent a largely one-sided perspective (those sources are listed if you doubt this) and few if any of those sources are using any verifiable criteria in establishing their own rankings and ratings that the acclaimedmusic.net lists are being based on because it's not their business to be objective, it's to sell magazines. Those placements on that site are essentially nothing more than a collection of similar people's personal favorites that happen to be published and therefore it doesn't help to bring in totally subjective evidence to support what should be a totally objective argument. That's not the way to go here, you can make your case a lot better with me if you want just by following the stated criteria, but to do that you need to credit BOTH artists accurately, not just the one or two you want higher.

But you don't seem to be off to a good start in claiming the Four Seasons were made redundant by the Beatles and British Invasion when in fact in the period immediately following that invasion (February 64-September 64) they had four consecutive TOP TEN hits and went on to score 14 Top Twenty Hits in between the time the Beatles landed on American shores and released Sgt. Pepper's before Frankie Valli began concentrating on a seperate solo career, which is what really derailed the Seasons success, four full years after you claimed.

So I guess by redundant you meant "still just as successful as ever and not really affected in any way by the Beatles", as they still released huge hits, had some of the most advanced production found on any records of the time, including far more influential production than the Beatles pre-Revolver, and had great musical impact as well. Add to it the fact that this list naturally factors in their entire career in the 60's, including their three straight #1 hits to kick off their reign in '62 (which by the way was better than the Beatles subsequent three straight chart hits when they first arrived two years later, which went to #1, #1 and #3 only, for a combined fewer weeks at the top no less), and you can see why The Four Seasons have no trouble actually earning their spot. No, they're not going to challenge the Beatles at the top obviously, but 17th is clearly where they belong based on their accomplishments and that too should be fairly self-evident for someone looking at it objectively.

There some people on other music web sites who think the rankings here are a joke. I don't agree with that thinking but having the Supremes over the Rolling Stones doesn't get you off to a good start. Also you're wrong many people take Acclaimed Music seriously. I have seen people on this forum use it as source of reference in making their statements or debate. Acclaimed Music charts are based on information or critic lists gathered through the years from actual rankings and numbers. The rankings have an actual source or reason to it. The lists here are based on opinions and could be based on personal preference than the actual truth.

I have nothing against the Four Seasons once the Beatles hit they certainly weren't a prime musical force. From a musicial point of view the Four Seasons were made reduntant by the Beatles and the British Invasion. From a recording, lyricial, experimentation, and how people viewed the album as an art form the Four Season had very little influence. I could name fifty 60's bands that were more influential than the Four Seasons.

You can spin the charts to your liking. The Beatles wrote 7 number one hits in 1964 alone and had the top 5 five songs in one chart. Something you don't mention on your timeline by the way better than the Four Season reign and basically unmatched in rock history. Ok after the British Invasion hit they had three#1 songs prior to the Beatles and only one after the Beatles. They had a number of hit songs but they were not scoring many top five hits.

You would be wrong on your Pre-Revolver opinion. Remember Brian Wilson thought Rubber Soul was the album where the music, the lyrics and use of the studio was as one. One more thing also the Beatles "Ticket To Ride" really the start of the Beatles psychedelic period or transition into their new sound? The Beatles could have gone psychedelic as early as "Ticket To Ride”. The prominent 'lop-sided' drums and the unusually (in 1965) long bars of droning really do sound like an anemic cousin of Tomorrow Never Knows in retrospect. l am not say the Beatles invented varispeeding of course they didn't but that doesn't mean they didn't use it in a different manner that came before them. A lot of that sound on "Ticket To Ride" was actually produced by using varispeeding in which the Beatles used a lot for the purpose of psychedelic effects.

The charts matter but it doesn't make it the determining factor on what makes an artist great. Elvis Presley had many chart hits in the 60's and he wasn't anything anywhere near the influence as the Beatles or Dylan.

Musicfan67 · **Joined:** Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:44 am **Posts:** 402

Sampson wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

Supreme had more top hits in the 60s than most, but more influential than Dylan and the Stones? Nope.

I never offered a view on the Supremes influence versus either of those artists. You've given a one word rejection that they both were more influential with no evidence.

Dylan clearly is more influential in the 60's than the Supremes, but the Stones weren't. They were totally derivitive musically, and they themselves admit such. They were in no way musical innovators, they were playing Chuck Berry riffs and Mick Jagger was ripping off Don Covay's vocal style... and they were FABULOUS at it. But not influential. Their biggest influence as artists comes from reinventing the touring model and that's credited to them for the 70's.

Because other artists sound like or worshipped the Stones does not make them the source of the influence when they themselves are influenced so overtly by artists preceding them. Ironically the Stones biggest 60's influence is their shabby dress, though they do get credit elsewhere obviously, certain key songs, but they're the least influential for the decade of the Top Ten here.

I agree that they weren't that innovative. Who honestly knows who did what first? Some guy who you might have never heard of might have done something first and we don't know about that.

Yeh they weren't the exact first to use the fuzz guitar as it's central theme on a riff. Yet they were influential on that sound right? I think you are missing some key things they did also. You don't think the Rolling Stones weren't influential on hard rock, the classic rock format, and being the one of the main cogs in the British Invasion. Also the origins or influence of arena rock were widely influenced by people like the The Rolling Stones besides the Beatles Shea Stadium concert. You don't think the use of the fuzz toned guitar riff on "Satisfaction" wasn't influential? I think "Paint it Black" though influenced by George Harrison use was the first major pop single to go number one with the sitar featured. They are easily one of the most covered songwriters/musicians in the rock era. These are nothing to casually throw aside.

I have to be consistent with this theme. One of the many reasons why I have the Beatles over Elvis are these reasons. The Rolling Stones wrote and played their music. They had the better album run. Sorry but for me personally these factors are important but not solely who is the greater artist.

Sampson · **Joined:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm **Posts:** 1657

Musicfan67 wrote:

There some people on other music web sites who think the rankings here are a joke. I don't agree with that thinking but having the Supremes over the Rolling Stones doesn't get you off to a good start. Also you're wrong many people take Acclaimed Music seriously. I have seen people on this forum use it as source of reference in making their statements or debate.

Acclaimedmusic.net is taken seriously by those who find support for their own tastes there, which not surprisingly includes many people on this website. It is simply a compilation of critic reviews, best ofs and other published lists, made with no criteria, or varying criteria from list to list, and most importantly done to SELL MAGAZINES catering mostly to a young white male demographic. In other words, Kerrang's list of the Greatest Albums of All-Time is not going to include Carole King's Tapestry or Stevie Wonder's Songs In The Key Of Life because their readers would burn the issue in protest. They're a metal/hard rock publication and all of their selections fall under that category.

There are just two lists used from The Source, the biggest hip-hop magazine out there, yet there are 18 lists used from MOJO and 23 from its sister publication Q, a combined 41 lists affecting the rankings from a single perspective - more than 20 TIMES the weight of the Source. Hmm, I wonder what types of artists are going to benefit from that disparity... it sure won't be Snoop Dogg or Eric B. & Rakim. Yet this is your idea of objective?

There are 16 lists from NME. Ten by Pitchfork. 14 by Pause & Play. 15 by Rox de Lux. 12 by Spin. 9 by Uncut. 29 by Rolling Stone! Black publications combined don't have as much as Rolling Stone! There are no magazines like Goldmine or DISCoveries that focused prominently on 50's era rock yet there are two seperate lists used focusing SOLEY on Bob Dylan that get figured into their tabulations, meaning he's getting statistical credit for songs/albums appearing on those that benefit him against artists who are not even ELIGIBLE for those lists in the first place! Any wonder why Dylan does so well there?

Put it this way. If you were take out all of the lists they've used and replaced them with different lists from different sources that catered to entirely different audiences with different tastes, do you think the results would be any different? Of course they would and only an idiot would say otherwise. So when there is proven to be an overwhelming bias towards a certain cultural and musical perspective, even though the site itself doesn't share that bias but is just crippled by there not being enough diversity in their sources to replicate the diversity of music history, then why would anyone take it seriously? I'd expect more out of you than that.

As for this site, I can't speak for anyone's lists but my own and the criteria for those is clearly spelled out and any arguments made for or against an artist must be made using only that critera. If you want to personally define "greatness" differently, then come up with your own criteria that will get you the results you're seeking in advance. But going by this criteria the Supremes are indeed the greater artist than The Rolling Stones in the 1960's. That doesn't mean you have to like The Supremes music and throw your Rolling Stones records in the trash, it just means you have to accept their accomplishments as being of slightly greater significance in terms of this criteria, that's all.

Echoes · **Joined:** Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:43 am **Posts:** 4564

Sampson:

Sorry, but I think that you are totally wrong about The Rolling Stones. They are highly innovative and influential.

Sampson · **Joined:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm **Posts:** 1657

Musicfan67 wrote:

I have nothing against the Four Seasons once the Beatles hit they certainly weren't a prime musical force. From a musicial point of view the Four Seasons were made reduntant by the Beatles and the British Invasion. From a recording, lyricial, experimentation, and how people viewed the album as an art form the Four Season had very little influence. I could name fifty 60's bands that were more influential than the Four Seasons.

You can spin the charts to your liking. The Beatles wrote 7 number one hits in 1964 alone and had the top 5 five songs in one chart. Something you don't mention on your timeline by the way better than the Four Season reign and basically unmatched in rock history. Ok after the British Invasion hit they had three#1 songs prior to the Beatles and only one after the Beatles. They had a number of hit songs but they were not scoring many top five hits.

You're tossing around claims like "they certainly weren't a prime musical force" even faced with evidence that proves otherwise. Basically you're using your OPINION on what's a prime musical force, not facts. Their popularity did not decline in the face of the Beatles, so obviously they were still a force (nice of you try childishly move the cut off line for chart success from Top Ten to Top Five, thereby eliminating six huge hits the Seasons had in a four year strech - c'mon, that's pretty junior high of you!). Their lyrics dealt with class divisions that ran deep in society. Their productions and arrangements grew more intricate and way more experimental during that time as well and that was indeed influential. You later bring up the sitar, which all Beatle supporters love because it seemed so unconventional and therefore shows how radical they were... yet the Seasons were prominentally using such unorthodox instruments such as the tympani, ratchets, glockenspiels, ocarinas on a regular basis, introducing sound textures that had never been explored in the basic lineup of piano/guitar/bass/drum/horn section that had dominated rock for 15 years prior to that.

Maybe you just don't know these things, maybe you don't want to credit them for it yourself, but they get credit for it all in any objective look at the music scene of the 60's. Besides, they're 15 spots away from the Beatles and aren't competing with them for the number 1 spot anyway, but they were not, in any conceivable way, made "redundant" by The Fab Four or anyone else. They had a legendary career and earned their spot on this list by their accomplishments alone.

Sampson · **Joined:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm **Posts:** 1657

Musicfan67 wrote:

Yeh they weren't the exact first to use the fuzz guitar as it's central theme on a riff. Yet they were influential on that sound right?

Yes, and they get credit for what is known as "secondary influence", meaning they helped popularize something that was created first (primary influence) by somebody else. The innovator gets primary influence credit, which is much greater, but the way in which that innovation gets spread counts as secondary influence and also factors in.

Musicfan67 wrote:

I think you are missing some key things they did also. You don't think the Rolling Stones weren't influential on hard rock, the classic rock format, and being the one of the main cogs in the British Invasion. Also the origins or influence of arena rock were widely influenced by people like the The Rolling Stones besides the Beatles Shea Stadium concert.

I'm not missing anything, what they legitimately did they GET CREDIT FOR! The "classic rock format" is not a style of music, it is a radio format aimed at blue collar males between the ages of 18-45 with a high school education or less and making under $50,000 a year who prefer the songs and artists making up their playlists. Main cogs in the British Invasion? They're supposed to be credited for being from Great Britian? No, the first wave of British imports paved that road and those artists get credit because that barrier to popularity in America had been broken. If anything it actually became EASIER to achieve success in the US in mid-1964 if you WERE from the UK, and there were even American bands that attempted to pass themselves off as British with vaguely English-sounding names to have a better chance of being played on radio at the time. The Stones DO get credit however for advancing blues-rock in white combos and leading that movement from the UK to America. So don't think I'm passing over their accomplishments, but I'm actually giving credit for what they REALLY did, not trying to find any remote connection to something that you could possibly use to help their cause.

Musicfan67 wrote:

I have to be consistent with this theme. One of the many reasons why I have the Beatles over Elvis are these reasons. The Rolling Stones wrote and played their music. They had the better album run. Sorry but for me personally these factors are important but not solely who is the greater artist.

But see, those are YOUR personal criteria for what YOU think is more important. A person listening to a Stones record in 1965 did not care if Mick and Keith wrote it ("Satisfaction"), covered it and gave credit to the original writer ("It's All Over Now") or blatantly stole it and took credit for something they didn't write ("The Last Time"). On this list there's no bonus points for doing things the way you find to be "greater". Artists can gain influence points for their writing, their musicianship, so it does help to do those things but no artist is getting points knocked off for not doing them. If the Stones "have a better album run", then they would obviously benefit from that in the Commercial Impact criteria if those albums were hits. Everything gets factored in fairly, trust me on this, but it seems to me that you are first establishing what you find to be noteworthy or admirable based on your own tastes and biases and then trying to figure out how those can be used to elevate the artist over others who don't fit that mold. Sorry, but that's not objective, that's just your record collection made into a list. I hope you understand the difference.

Sampson · **Joined:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm **Posts:** 1657

Echoes wrote:

Sampson:

Sorry, but I think that you are totally wrong about The Rolling Stones. They are highly innovative and influential.

How? If they are "highly" innovative and influential, surely you can explain how very easily. That's what this board is for after all, right?

ClashWho · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:21 pm

Echoes wrote:

Sampson:

Sorry, but I think that you are totally wrong about The Rolling Stones. They are highly innovative and influential.

Make some arguments, man! You aren't going to get anywhere making sweeping, generalized statements and just leaving it at that. Why do you think the Rolling Stones are more innovative and influential than Sampson is giving them credit for?

ClashWho · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:34 pm

Sampson wrote:

They're incredibly close overall, as you'd expect for one spot away, but the Four Seasons just made a slightly bigger dent on the 60's rock scene.

Cool, thanks.

The Who really are #15 in the last revision that I saw. It's right here in this forum in the recently locked 1960's thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=88&start=0

Apparently it's from 3-25-2005.

gminer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:17 pm **Posts:** 2949

Sampson,

.. all great material and very interesting to read, the only artist I generally question on a list dedicated to the 60`s is the high placement of the Velvet Underground as they did not exist in the 60`s based on the criteria (Equal parts Commercial Impact, Influence, Musical Impact and Cultural Impact) until the 70`s and generally only after some interest in Lou Reed`s solo material had developed. The VU would not have moved more than 10,000 units of all their material during the entire decade of the 60`s, there is no mention of them in any music and trade publication outside of the general New York area in the 60`s and their music was not played or distributed in any significant way beyond that geographical area and I am not sure if there is any material of any artist in the 60`s stating any influence to the VU (years after yes, but not quoted in the 60`s as far as I have ever seen).... it could be argued had Lou Reed not had some success in the 70`s with his solo work none of the interest in the VU material would have happened particularly for artists outside the US in the 70`s ...... the actual biggest area, even though not that large for their material seems to have been France during the 70`s .... and other artists in the 60`s were creating bigger impacts at their time in the 60`s in a similar style of music from the Sonics to the Del Vetts in the US to the Monks in Germany to the Ugly Ducklings in Canada and so on and on .... Take care

... as an example, one can find hundreds and hundreds of unknown and know artists from the 60`s and in the 60`s pointing to the Who or numerous others artists on this entire list by keyword searches into music archives, libraries etc etc (Rock`s Back Pages, Canadian Federal Media Library and the same for the UK and Australia and many more)... but I have never found one for the VU in any searches for the 60`s ( in the 70`s yes) .... but if someone has one or more I would love to see it ...

Echoes · **Joined:** Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:43 am **Posts:** 4564

Musicfan just say it.

IMO Satisfaction is the song that divides Rock N Roll from Rock. Paint it Black is a song that created a whole movement (accordingly to a friend of mine how is “dark”, he claims that the Dark movement started with that song).

I can’t imagine bands like The Doors without The Rolling Stones.

Just listen to this song and tell me which band played like that before The Rolling Stones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYYTLJ8YHi4

Fuck, there are too many examples……………….

gminer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:17 pm **Posts:** 2949

... the Sonics from 1965 ... and what many call the beginning of the Seattle sound ... Take care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Nffq0bOgE

... and even darker from the Sonics in 1964 - The Witch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMtk5Lor ... re=related

gminer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:17 pm **Posts:** 2949

Echoes wrote:

Musicfan just say it.

IMO Satisfaction is the song that divides Rock N Roll from Rock. Paint it Black is a song that created a whole movement (accordingly to a friend of mine how is “dark”, he claims that the Dark movement started with that song).

I can’t imagine bands like The Doors without The Rolling Stones.

Just listen to this song and tell me which band played like that before The Rolling Stones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYYTLJ8YHi4

Fuck, there are too many examples……………….

Hello Echoes hope all is well with you ....

... from the UK you might find this fellow interesting as the Stones were very well aware of Cyril Davies and the All Stars ... the Stones opened for him in 1962 and 63 etc ... and you might note Charlie Watts played drums at one time for Davies and Jack Bruce played bass ... and a little more trivia Davies regular drummer Carlo Little often played for the Stones and recommended one of his drum students Charlie Watts to the Stones ... another drum student of Littles was Keith Moon ....Take care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QynodK3u0O8

... and just something to be different Ronnie Wood`s brother Art with Jon Lord (in later yrs with Deep Purple) on keyboards and also a little guitar feedback ... The Artwoods ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl1QKd0e ... re=related

Echoes · **Joined:** Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:43 am **Posts:** 4564

gminer wrote:

Echoes wrote:

Musicfan just say it.

IMO Satisfaction is the song that divides Rock N Roll from Rock. Paint it Black is a song that created a whole movement (accordingly to a friend of mine how is “dark”, he claims that the Dark movement started with that song).

I can’t imagine bands like The Doors without The Rolling Stones.

Just listen to this song and tell me which band played like that before The Rolling Stones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYYTLJ8YHi4

Fuck, there are too many examples……………….

Hello Echoes hope all is well with you ....

... from the UK you might find this fellow interesting as the Stones were very well aware of Cyril Davies and the All Stars ... the Stones opened for him in 1962 and 63 etc ... and you might note Charlie Watts played drums at one time for Davies and Jack Bruce played bass ...Take care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QynodK3u0O8

... and just something to be different Ronnie Wood`s brother Art with Jon Lord (in later yrs with Deep Purple) on keyboards and also a little guitar feedback ... The Artwoods ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl1QKd0e ... re=related

Absolutely mind blowing!!!

I have discovered tons of great music thanks to you.

Sampson · **Joined:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm **Posts:** 1657

ClashWho wrote:

The Who really are #15 in the last revision that I saw. It's right here in this forum in the recently locked 1960's thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=88&start=0

Apparently it's from 3-25-2005.

Yeah, that's an old version, the ones in my computer files don't even go back that far, but I had stayed off the forums so I guess that's why such an old version was included.

The jumps that are noticable over the Who are really The Tempts and Miracles, who I had clearly not given enough credit for originally.

Greatest Rock Artists Of The 1960's

Who is online