Greatest Rock Artists Of The 1960's

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

Echoes wrote:

gminer wrote:

...you are welcome my friend and if you are interested in some fantastic drumming from 1961 .... here is the drum teacher for Charlie Watts and Keith Moon ... Carlo Little with Screaming Lord Sutch .... listen to this one the whole way through, there are not many singles in those days with a drum solo ..... some call Carlo Little the first power drummer ... Take care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLIcC6wzyns

The drummer is great, the guitarist is great, and the sax solo is also great.

Thanks!

... you are welcome ... it is an interesting piece of music from the era ... Take care

Dreww · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:04 pm

What is your theory for how The Velvet Underground came to be seen as much more highly regarded than The Monks? Was it a critical conspiracy? Historical revisionism propped up with Andy Warhol's celebrity status? There has to be some kind of accounting for it.

I apologize for my tone in my former post. You do not deserve that.

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

Dreww wrote:

What is your theory for how The Velvet Underground came to be seen as much more highly regarded than The Monks? Was it a critical conspiracy? Historical revisionism propped up with Andy Warhol's celebrity status? There has to be some kind of accounting for it.

... those are your thoughts and words not mine ... Take care

Dreww · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:09 pm

Why do you think The Velvet Underground are more regarded now?

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

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……………….

Well the Beatles were already writing dark pop tunes in "I'm A Loser", "Baby's In Black", "Girl" and "Eleanor Rigby" is as dark as "Paint It Black". The thing is the Beatles had the ultra melodic style and harmonies to back those lyrical topics.

The dividing line from rock and roll to rock to me is either Rubber Soul or Bob Dylan "Like A Rolling Stone".

I love the Rolling Stones and I think they had some innovation to them. I have to disagree with Sampson. When the Beatles did "Twist and Shout" they took a party tune and made it into a full sonic rock song. The Stones and Who were doing the same thing with their covers of R&B and Blues tunes.

If anyone doesn't think "Satisfaction" was not influential on rock music is crazy.

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

Dreww wrote:

Why do you think The Velvet Underground are more regarded now?

gminer shakes Dreww`s hand ... and responds with a short but incomplete explanation...

... I think it started in the 70`s with the beginning success of Lou Reed`s solo material ... that is when many first became aware of the Velvet Underground but also for me, because Ian Paice of Deep Purple had played on one of their albums which increased some awareness to the band ... much like many others after hearing Lou Reed and exploring more about him I think many started looking to his earlier work and the discovery of VU was underway .... and it also coincided with the bloatedness of the so-called supergroups and the VU was as far removed from what had exploded out of that era and all of its excesses .... Take care

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

Echoes wrote:

gminer wrote:

...you are welcome my friend and if you are interested in some fantastic drumming from 1961 .... here is the drum teacher for Charlie Watts and Keith Moon ... Carlo Little with Screaming Lord Sutch .... listen to this one the whole way through, there are not many singles in those days with a drum solo ..... some call Carlo Little the first power drummer ... Take care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLIcC6wzyns

The drummer is great, the guitarist is great, and the sax solo is also great.

Thanks!

... this might give you a smile from the Artwoods, some strange material but excellent musicianship .... Take care

... this one is called "Molly Anderson´s Cookery"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOq8Af7p ... re=related

... and this one is called "IM LOOKING FOR A SAXOPHONIST DOUBLING FRENCH HORN WEARING SIZE 37 BOOTS"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1xBXrUq ... re=related

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

ClashWho wrote:

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.

Yes, you keep beating the same drum. You continually talk about "the better album run," but when someone mentions that perhaps the other artist had a better singles run, you ignore it. You are obviously biased towards album artists, despite rock 'n' roll being a singles-driven art form for much of its existance. You also keep bringing up the idea of artists writing and playing their own music as if it should matter on these greatness lists. It doesn't.

Well all these lists are subjective IMO. I come from a point of view that writing and playing your own music IS MORE IMPRESSIVE than covering other songwriter songs. Many of the great bands were more reliant on the album format than the single format. Were talking about progressive rock, heavy metal and bands like The Who, Led Zeppelin etc... That doesn't mean they didn't release singles but the bulk of their sales were based on album sales. I think 1968 was the first year the album format outsold the single format. Think about the album that came out 1967 that was a massive seller without a single released. What album was that? WE ALL KNOW THE NAME OF THE ALBUM RIGHT? I don't think it was a coincidence the album format was outselling the single format the following year.

Yeh I think these album runs were more impressive than HAVING A GREAT SINGLE RUN.

Dylan's electric trilogy
Beatles: Rubber Soul/Revolver/Sgt Pepper
Stones: Let it Bleed/Sticky Fingers/Exile on Main Street

The Beatles' whole career can be separated into threes, if you don't count Yellow Submarine as a studio album. You've got the POWER/POP/JANGLE/POP (Please Please Me/With The Beatles/A Hard Day's Night), Folk/Country Rock (Beatles For Sale, Help!, Rubber Soul), the PSYCHEDELIC/PROGRESSIVE/AVANT POP (Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour (not a real album, I know)), and the ROCK AND EVERYTHING ELSE (The Beatles, Abbey Road, Let It Be).

The Who (My Generation, A Quick One, Sell Out) then Pete's "everything has to be a rock opera" stage (Tommy, Who's Next, Quadraphenia), then the slow decline (Who By Numbers, Who Are You, Face Dances).

The Rolling Stone also have their "let's copy everything The Beatles do" run (Aftermath, Between the Buttons, Their Satanic Majesties Request) followed by "okay, enough OF THAT (Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers).

Look we disagree that's cool.

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

Dreww wrote:

Why do you think The Velvet Underground are more regarded now?

With all this talk about the Monks and the Velvet Underground you people are forgetting the Sonics were proto-punk. They should be in the discussion.

Avery_Island · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:58 pm

Sticky Fingers and Exile were both 70s albums, not 60s. Remember that a lot of the Stones musical impact and influence was in the 70s rather than all in the 60s.

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

Avery_Island wrote:

Sticky Fingers and Exile were both 70s albums, not 60s. I think a lot of the Stones musical impact and influence was in the 70s as much as the 60s.

Still I was making a point about album runs compared to having a great singles run. You are right they weren't a great albums band at first. I would argue that their influence and great songwriting was mainly in the 60's. Some people argue that the Rolling Stones haven't made a great album since EXILE.

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

Musicfan67 wrote:

Yeh I think these album runs were more impressive than HAVING A GREAT SINGLE.

You do realize that I said a great singles RUN, right? Not just one great single.

Musicfan67 wrote:

Look we disagree that's cool.

Okay.

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

Sampson wrote:

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.

What claims. The facts are the Four Season musical influence greatly diminished after the Beatles broke through here in America. Not rewriting history there right. Childishly move the cut off line at the top 5 when the facts are they started out with three #1 songs and only had one after the British Invasion.

So the Four Seasons used the tympani, ratchets, glockenspiels they still were common instruments in pop music.

The Beatles and their use of non rock sources, unconventional use of feedback, volume swells, lead fuzz bass, psychedelic use as a studio as an instrument and eastern instruments was way more unconvetional than what the Four Seasons did. People like you and ClashWHO talk about the sitar as if it didn't matter. The Beatles experimenting with those instruments was another way to expand the parameters of pop music and it's influence on rock guitarists in experimenting with microtones in rock music was influential on people like Robert Fripp. Not to mention it's influence on World Music in rock circles.

"It (Sgt Pepper) had an amazing effect on the way people saw records. I mean, people suddenly thought - oh, well you can do that? Well they've done it so of course you can do it. So I suppose it opened a door and showed everyone there's another room that you can all play around in."

- Phil Collins

"The Beatles. They broke down every barrier that ever existed. Suddenly you could do anything after The Beatles. You could write your own music, make it ninety yards long, put it in 7/4, whatever you wanted."

- Bill Buford

By the way I like the Four Seasons and I'm not knocking them either but the opinions are getting more whackier by the day here. Also I am not saying the Beatles are solely responsible for these things in rock music. Look you can't deny the huge influence the Beatles had on the increased experimentation and studio resources in rock music. I just think they had the biggest influence that's all.

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

ClashWho wrote:

Musicfan67 wrote:

Yeh I think these album runs were more impressive than HAVING A GREAT SINGLE.

You do realize that I said a great singles RUN, right? Not just one great single.

Musicfan67 wrote:

Look we disagree that's cool.

Okay.

Yes I knew what you meant about a great singles run. Hey we disagree that's fine but I do agree with that the Who should be in anyone top ten greatest rock artist list.

ClashWho · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:51 pm

Musicfan67 wrote:

What claims. The facts are the Four Season musical influence greatly diminished after the Beatles broke through here in America. Not rewriting history there right. Childishly move the cut off line at the top 5 when the facts are they started out with three #1 songs and only had one after the British Invasion.

Come on, man, there are a lot more slots on the chart than #1. The Four Seasons were gigantically successful on the singles chart before, during, and after the initial wave of the British Invasion. They had something like eight top ten hits from 1965 to 1976, plus numerous other Top Forty hits. You're making it sound like the arrival of the Beatles killed the Four Seasons dead. That's just incredibly wrong. In fact, their biggest hit ever might be 1976's "December, 1963 (Oh, What a Night)".

Greatest Rock Artists Of The 1960's

Who is online