MSNBC's 10 best rock bands of all times
Raja, The Great
1. The Beatles
2. The Rolling Stones
3. U2
4. The Grateful Dead
5. The Velvet Underground
6. Led Zeppelin
7. The Ramones
8. Pink Floyd
9. Bob Marley And The Wailers
10. Sly and the Family Stone
Patrick Kehoe
#4 and below are all CRAP...
P
uly...@mscomm.com
shit!!
who?
U2 is crap.
Viper
Beatles, Stones, Zep and Floyd. Wouldn't give u a pinch of shit for the
rest, mind u they'd be among the top ten 'drug ridden' bands of all time
Viper
Whisper
lol boring geriatrica.
JohnB
Another list (and why post to tennis?) and another guy's opinions. We
could all come up with different top tens, some of us could come up
with a new variation every week. I could suggest some who are not
worthy of inclusion - but this list is not mine, so little point.
The era that these bands come from is significant, though. Are there
no new bands that will ever make it into a list like this? U2 are
possibly the newest here and they started in 1976. I'm sure some would
claim a place for those great pretenders Oasis; some might say
Radiohead; maybe even the Red Hot Chillis. Personally I could nominate
Elbow, purely because I'm really enjoying their music at the moment,
but top 10? Maybe not quite, though I much prefer them to all except
#1 and #8.
Scrunchy
"Raja, The Great" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e4d7792-27f0-4a42...@n11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
No one fucking cares.
Ray
> "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:9e4d7792-27f0-4a42...@n11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595384/ns/today-entertainment/
>
> > 1. The Beatles
> > 2. The Rolling Stones
> > 3. U2
> > 4. The Grateful Dead
> > 5. The Velvet Underground
> > 6. Led Zeppelin
> > 7. The Ramones
> > 8. Pink Floyd
> > 9. Bob Marley And The Wailers
> > 10. Sly and the Family Stone
>
> No one fucking cares.
And this changes nothing, LZ were still a big ass fraud and he knows
it down deep in the place where his soul should be.
richforman
An honest question for you Raja - a simple short answer will suffice -
I'm really curious - did you find this interesting?
richforman
billy
TT
Pretty interesting is what U2 does there. Also The Dead, Velvet and
Ramones have found their way curiously to hearts of critics. What's Sly
and the Family Stone?
Also, Beatles and Bob Marley are rock? Right...
Ray
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sly and the Family Stone were HUGE in the development of funk. The
bassist Larry Graham popularized the 'thumping and plucking' style
that is a staple of modern bass guitar.
And the Velvet Underground do not belong on that list by any standard
save that of the douchebag rock critic who is more influenced by hype
than the qualtiy of the music. The Velvets were the rock band
equivalent of the dreck that Andy Warhol cranked out of the "Silver
Factory". Just his clever way of pointing out that 'hip' new yorkers
will buy into anything if they think it's trendy.
Raja, The Great
> I agree... I think Zep is not crap, but the rest of reeking piles of
> shit!!
Even Pink Floyd? :(
Raja, The Great
Actually those 4 are in a different level. But I don't think any of
the bands on the list are crap.
Raja, The Great
My question to you is do YOU think any of the bands who formed most
the 70s are among the top 10 greatest rock bands ever. For once, let
us know what YOU think.
Raja, The Great
Nope. I do not like U2 or Grateful Dead. I like few U2 songs, but
certainly not the greatest or best rock bands ever. I would choose
ABBA over U2, honestly. I like the Ramones, but I always thought they
ran out of ideas soon. Velvet Underground is overrated but I love
their first album. Bob Marley is doubtful inclusion for rock and Sly
is even more. I think my top 10 greatest choices will be something
like this..
Based on historical importance and popularity
1. Beatles
2. Rolling Stones
3. Led Zeppelin
4. Pink Floyd
5. Yes
6. Black Sabbath
7. Deep Purple
8. Who
8. Kinks
10. Moody Blues
All these 10 bands are British, but this is the greatest list based on
importance and popularity and I don't think any American or German
(and there were many excellent bands from both countries) come close
to these 10 bands. Also these bands lasted a long time, so they
deserve credit.
Raja, The Great
Bullshit. Velvet Underground and Nico was a great album and
groundbreaking and heavily influenced many alternative rock bands of
the 80s, 90s and 00s.
Raja, The Great
Says a The Police fan. Do you realize, dumbass, that The Police are
from the 70s too?
JohnB
Let's see if I can figure out what you're trying to say. Are you
trying to ask me if I think any of the top 10 greatest bands formed in
the 70s?
Well, maybe.
Best rock bands ever would always include: The Beatles, Pink Floyd,
Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, Queen, Kinks.
Beyond those five is much more open to debate. Depends on individual
taste too much.
For my own personal taste I would include Jethro Tull, Stackridge,
Elbow, then I start to wonder about some other favourites. I would say
Fairport Convention but that's folk rock and after their first few
albums, their output was patchy. I could add loads more folk-rock
bands. I could add bands who may deserve to be on the list even if
they're not my personal favourites - like the Who, the Band, Yes,
Oasis (I'd argue against them), and others who get close for part of
their career like Blur.
You see, it's all to do with taste. I know some who would swear that
AC/DC should be top of the list and others who might suggest ELO,
Radiohead or even Motorhead. Who's to say, if someone wants to put
Curved Air on the list that they are wrong?
And what about Genesis, Roxy Music, Status Quo, Traffic, Cream - and
"solo" acts like Bowie, Springsteen, etc.?
There IS NO definitive list.
Ray
>
> - Show quoted text -
Imagine if they had used more than one chord!
Raja, The Great
Raja, The Great
Are you sure about Queen? They sold a truckload of records. But apart
from say about 15 really catchy songs what else have they got? Most of
their albums reek. 2-3 good songs, rest all filler/weak material.
Their lead singer was an Indian born in Bombay and I have a soft
corner for them for that, but I still they are one of the most
overrated bands on earth... even more than The Who. The Who at least
came way before them and innovated on many levels. What did Queen
bring to the table... Led Zeppelinesque riffs mixed with a bit of
piano and little opera thrown in? And spandex? They were too late in
the game and too derivative to be consider among the top 10 greatest
in my opinion. I still like them a lot.
Kinks were definitely very good, though were not as commercially
successful as many of the great bands. Any top 10 list without Beatles/
Stones/Zep/Floyd would be retarded anyway.
> Beyond those five is much more open to debate. Depends on individual
> taste too much.
> For my own personal taste I would include Jethro Tull, Stackridge,
> Elbow, then I start to wonder about some other favourites.
Yeah but you have to be more objective... I think Hawkwind is one my
absolute favorite bands. But really they never broke through to the US
and change their lineup one too many times to have any sort of
success. They cannot be really considered great. But if I make a best
list, they make my top 10.
> I would say
> Fairport Convention but that's folk rock and after their first few
> albums, their output was patchy. I could add loads more folk-rock
> bands. I could add bands who may deserve to be on the list even if
> they're not my personal favourites - like the Who, the Band, Yes,
> Oasis (I'd argue against them), and others who get close for part of
> their career like Blur.
> You see, it's all to do with taste. I know some who would swear that
> AC/DC should be top of the list and others who might suggest ELO,
> Radiohead or even Motorhead. Who's to say, if someone wants to put
> Curved Air on the list that they are wrong?
> And what about Genesis, Roxy Music, Status Quo, Traffic, Cream - and
> "solo" acts like Bowie, Springsteen, etc.?
> There IS NO definitive list.
Well anyone's personal list cannot be definitive. In fact even if the
list is made by a billion critics and fans, it would be not be
definitive. There is no such thing as a definitive list.
Whisper
Any list that doesn't have Police in top 4 is null & void. Gay fanboy
stuff.
TT
> fanboy stuff.
>
>
Fixed it for ya.
Raja, The Great
Yes, I agree The Police is gay fanboy stuff ;-)
JohnB
The Kinks were incrediby commercially successful, just more for
singles than albums.
>
> > Beyond those five is much more open to debate. Depends on individual
> > taste too much.
> > For my own personal taste I would include Jethro Tull, Stackridge,
> > Elbow, then I start to wonder about some other favourites.
>
> Yeah but you have to be more objective... I think Hawkwind is one my
> absolute favorite bands. But really they never broke through to the US
> and change their lineup one too many times to have any sort of
> success. They cannot be really considered great. But if I make a best
> list, they make my top 10.
No, I do not have to be more objective, not when I'm talking about my
personal taste.
>
> > I would say
> > Fairport Convention but that's folk rock and after their first few
> > albums, their output was patchy. I could add loads more folk-rock
> > bands. I could add bands who may deserve to be on the list even if
> > they're not my personal favourites - like the Who, the Band, Yes,
> > Oasis (I'd argue against them), and others who get close for part of
> > their career like Blur.
> > You see, it's all to do with taste. I know some who would swear that
> > AC/DC should be top of the list and others who might suggest ELO,
> > Radiohead or even Motorhead. Who's to say, if someone wants to put
> > Curved Air on the list that they are wrong?
> > And what about Genesis, Roxy Music, Status Quo, Traffic, Cream - and
> > "solo" acts like Bowie, Springsteen, etc.?
> > There IS NO definitive list.
>
> Well anyone's personal list cannot be definitive. In fact even if the
> list is made by a billion critics and fans, it would be not be
> definitive. There is no such thing as a definitive list.
That's what I said.
John Doherty
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595384/ns/today-entertainment/
>
> 1. The Beatles
> 2. The Rolling Stones
> 3. U2
> 4. The Grateful Dead
> 5. The Velvet Underground
> 6. Led Zeppelin
> 7. The Ramones
> 8. Pink Floyd
> 9. Bob Marley And The Wailers
> 10. Sly and the Family Stone
I'll chime in for the Dead here. Jerry once said the people that are
fans of the band are like fans of licorice: "...not everyone likes
licorice, but the people who like it, like it a lot!"
Bill Graham, the promoter who did so much to develop the modern notion
of rock concert, once said "They are not just the best at what they
do, they are the only ones who do what they do". Of course, that was
before Phish, Widespread Panic, Umphrey's Magee, etc. Now there are
many who do what they do, but none who do it better.
If you only know them by the hits Truckin' or Touch of Grey, let me
tell you, you don't know them at all. Unlike the other 9 bands on this
list, the Dead were always at their best live, not in studio (thought
they did release several first rate studio albums: American Beauty,
Workingman's Dead & Mars Hotel come to mind).
That in mind, play this youtube clip in the background while you read
my words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1igVj3w8KE
Set the video at about 6:20, when full improvisation & "Beautiful Jam"
sets in.
With most bands, you go see them live hoping they can reproduce some
percent of what they deliver on record. For the Dead it was precisely
the opposite equation. I like both Steely Dan and the Dead, two bands
with big jazz influences that were red hot in the 70s. But they are as
different as night & day. The Dan were famous for telling first rate
players to deliver the notes with no emotional content. "Play it
precise", to the point where the player disappears behind the notes.
The Dan retreated to the studio and stopped touring altogether.
By contrast, the Dead would go long stretches between albums, while
constantly touring. they defied record company rules in so many ways:
letting fans tape their shows, surviving as a touring band for 40
years with little or no radio airplay, etc. Onstage, the ethic was get
out there "without a net", try something you've never tried before in
taking a song in a new direction.
In the 1990s, the Grateful Dead were the top touring band in the world
in terms of money made for 3 out of the first five years of the
decade. So in the end, even if you personally think they suck, it
doesn't matter-- their place in history as the greatest American rock
and roll band is secure. The E Street Band would be second, I guess,
but Springsteen has turned his back on them for long stretches.
So , if you've listened to that clip, you can get a brief insight to
what was special about them. They were forged in the fires of
psychedelic San Francisco and the Summer of Love. They took a fearless
approach to onstage improvisation that was always interesting, and
often breathtaking. The passion and fire of this particular jam is
representative of what you might hear on a great night.
In Jerry Garcia, they had a musical genius who could play decent
bluegrass banjo, liquid psychedelic jams and great acoustic guitar,
too. His jams could invoke everything from Philadelphia Soul to Indian
raga to Appalachian murder ballads to show tunes, to Beatles or Dylan
classics. Dylan himself credited the Dead with teaching him how to
take a fresh approach to his own catalog and to play the songs with
new vigor. In Phil Lesh, they had a classically trained trumpeter who
worked the bass with a radical new approach: he reinvented this
standard piece of the rhythm section as a co-lead instrument to spur
Garcia to greater glory. The band's drummers (two for most of their
tenure) could handle the bottom, leaving Lesh free to define where the
lead would go. Bob Weir brought his own great catalog of songs and
also brought in country and western classics, at a time when their was
a Berlin Wall between hippies and rednecks.
So that's why the Grateful Dead earned their slot on the list, IMO.
JohnB
There can be few bands who polarise opinion in quite the same way as
the Dead. It's not the usual Love/Hate, more like a ReallyReallyLove/
CompleteIndifference. I fall into the latter group, I'm afraid. They
never had any great commecial success that I'm aware of, certainly not
in the UK, so I never think of them in terms of "one of the best". It
never occurs to me that I should.
RichL
news:7555c763-7e96-4e8c...@g10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
Well I for one can assert that your polarization hypothesis doesn't apply,
at least to me. I neither ReallyReallyLove them nor am I completely
indifferent to them. I'm in the middle. They may be in my top 200 or so
but not in my top ten.
As for John D.'s comments (I'll address them here rather than in a separate
post in response to him, since I'm in a hurry): Garcia as musical genius?
Hey, don't get me wrong, he's the only musician whose portrait I have on my
music room wall aside from members of the Beatles and Queen. But he was a
cog in a wheel. A very impressive wheel when it worked well, a warped and
rusting wheel when it didn't. Live-performance-wise, they were a very mixed
bag. They could be plain awful, as they were on many occasions. Even when
they were very good, the extended, meandering jams that headed nowhere for
minutes upon minutes at a time tried the patience of the musically inclined
who, while appreciative of their technical skill, just wanted them to *get
to the point*.
I like a lot of their structured songs. The jams? Meh.... And if the jams
bored you, you weren't going to be thrilled at a Dead concert.
One more point. The "radical new approach" of a classically trained
musician playing bass as a co-lead instrument in a rock band had already
been done before the Dead came along. The guy who did it was named John
Entwistle, and the guitarist who he spurred to greater glory was named Pete
Townshend. Just sayin'...
Joe Ramirez
>
> In the 1990s, the Grateful Dead were the top touring band in the world
> in terms of money made for 3 out of the first five years of the
> decade. So in the end, even if you personally think they suck, it
> doesn't matter-- their place in history as the greatest American rock
> and roll band is secure.
Non sequitur. Who cares how much money they made?
John Doherty
> On Feb 26, 11:23 am, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the 1990s, the Grateful Dead were the top touring band in the world
> > in terms of money made for 3 out of the first five years of the
> > decade. So in the end, even if you personally think they suck, it
> > doesn't matter-- their place in history as the greatest American rock
> > and roll band is secure.
>
On Feb 26, 2:57 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> Non sequitur. Who cares how much money they made?
My point is directed at those for whom they hold no special charm.
they can not be dismissed from consideration strictly because they
don't float your boat, when you reckon that :
1.) They were a successful touring unit for 30 years (65-95)
2.) They invented a genre of music that has outlived the life of the
band itself (though members are still touring-- indeed Phil & Bob's
Furthur is in town next week).
3.) In recent history, they were the largest and most successful
entity in the music business.
It's not "how much money they made"-- because they never screwed the
fans by charging $200 a ticket like the Stones, U2, and many other top
tier bands. Likewise, the Dead were also famous for spreading that
money around a big group of employees, and not just building personal
palaces with it. They lived a hippie ethic for many years after the
60s.
The Dead's appeal in the 90s was probably distorted by all their fans
who would see multiple shows-- sometimes a whole tour. Even if they
sold more tickets, the second act in those years may well have played
before more unique fans.
But that is part of the value the band delivered to its audience. I
never did a whole tour, but I did five shows in a row once in the 80s.
And I only heard a repeat song on the 5th night.
My point about their success as a touring band was not for you to go
slack jawed at a pile of money. It was that they were more successful
in delivering rock & roll to people in those years than anyone else in
the business, while not gouging their fan base.
John Doherty
> > There can be few bands who polarise opinion in quite the same way as
> > the Dead. It's not the usual Love/Hate, more like a ReallyReallyLove/
> > CompleteIndifference. I fall into the latter group, I'm afraid. They
> > never had any great commecial success that I'm aware of, certainly not
> > in the UK, so I never think of them in terms of "one of the best". It
> > never occurs to me that I should.
>
> Well I for one can assert that your polarization hypothesis doesn't apply,
> at least to me. I neither ReallyReallyLove them nor am I completely
> indifferent to them. I'm in the middle. They may be in my top 200 or so
> but not in my top ten.
>
> As for John D.'s comments (I'll address them here rather than in a separate
> post in response to him, since I'm in a hurry): Garcia as musical genius?
> Hey, don't get me wrong, he's the only musician whose portrait I have on my
> music room wall aside from members of the Beatles and Queen. But he was a
> cog in a wheel.
Rolling Stone Magazine ranked Jerry Garcia 13th in their list of the
100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. That Cog played separate from the
wheel in many outfits, notably banjo in "Old & in the Way" (a band
that did more to advance bluegrass to a wider audience than anything
before or since), The New Riders of the Purple Sage, The Jerry Garcia
Band, Legion of Mary, Garcia & Grisman, and several other side
projects, usually involving no other members or cogs from The Grateful
Dead. He's the guy playing pedal steel on "Teach Your Children", the
CSNY hit from 1970. He was the virtual producer of the breakthrough
Airplane album "Surrealistic Pillow". He played on records for
everyone from Ornette Coleman to Warren Zevon.
> A very impressive wheel when it worked well, a warped and
> rusting wheel when it didn't. Live-performance-wise, they were a very mixed
> bag. They could be plain awful, as they were on many occasions. Even when
> they were very good, the extended, meandering jams that headed nowhere for
> minutes upon minutes at a time tried the patience of the musically inclined
> who, while appreciative of their technical skill, just wanted them to *get
> to the point*.
>
> I like a lot of their structured songs. The jams? Meh.... And if the jams
> bored you, you weren't going to be thrilled at a Dead concert.
>
Well, as a Deadhead, I must say, for us, "the journey is the
destination", even when it seems meandering. But yes, some nights were
better than others, but that's the nature of experimentation. My wife
is not a Deadhead-- it's a mixed marriage;-) But I got her to a show
once in the early 90s, and her reaction reminds me of yours. Somewhere
in second set, I asked her what she thought so far. She said, "I like
the songs, but not so much all the stuff they play in between". But
that stuff is what Deadheads live for. Phil Lesh once said he saw his
concerts like sailing around, with teh songs islands we arrive at now
and then.
> One more point. The "radical new approach" of a classically trained
> musician playing bass as a co-lead instrument in a rock band had already
> been done before the Dead came along. The guy who did it was named John
> Entwistle, and the guitarist who he spurred to greater glory was named Pete
> Townshend. Just sayin'...
As a Who fan, I never felt Entwhistle was that innovative. The Who &
the Dead are mutual admiration societies, and they toured together
occasionally. But Lesh's work as a live innovator leaves Entwhistle &
the Who behind, certainly in terms of improvisation. I've seen the Who
a few times, but never wanted to see again them the next night, too.
And even if I accept your premise that Entwhistle did it first (which
I really don't-- he may have been innovative in his own right, but not
what Lesh was doing every night), you can't claim the Dead was
influenced by it, at least not in creating their style. Didn't the Who
debut in the US at Monterey? by 1967, The Dead was known as "The Good
Old Grateful Dead", and their style was set before the Who was much of
a presence.
By the way, in the 90's, the Dead did a great "Baba O'Riley>Tomorrow
Never Knows" on many occasions, in tribute to the Who.
Joe Ramirez
> > On Feb 26, 11:23 am, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the 1990s, the Grateful Dead were the top touring band in the world
> > > in terms of money made for 3 out of the first five years of the
> > > decade. So in the end, even if you personally think they suck, it
> > > doesn't matter-- their place in history as the greatest American rock
> > > and roll band is secure.
>
> On Feb 26, 2:57 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > Non sequitur. Who cares how much money they made?
>
> My point is directed at those for whom they hold no special charm.
> they can not be dismissed from consideration strictly because they
> don't float your boat
I wouldn't dismiss them for that reason. I would dismiss them as an
all-time great candidate because their *musical* legacy is too small.
They affected a core following deeply, but everyone else only lightly,
or not at all. You yourself pointed out that you wouldn't expect a
nonfan to be familiar with more than about two Dead songs. You think
that's true of the Beatles, Stones, or Zeppelin, even for people who
can't stand them?
> The Dead's appeal in the 90s was probably distorted by all their fans
> who would see multiple shows-- sometimes a whole tour. Even if they
> sold more tickets, the second act in those years may well have played
> before more unique fans.
>
> But that is part of the value the band delivered to its audience. I
> never did a whole tour, but I did five shows in a row once in the 80s.
> And I only heard a repeat song on the 5th night.
Yes, they were a mega-cult band -- perhaps the greatest cult band
ever, if fan loyalty is the measure. But "the greatest American rock
and roll band"? I don't see any kind of case for that.
Raja, The Great
> "JohnB" <johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message
Wrong, he was named James Jamerson....
Jamerson is noted for expanding the role of the bass in popular music,
which until that time largely consisted of root notes, fifths and
simple repetitive patterns. By contrast, many of Jamerson's bass lines
for Motown were more melodic, more syncopated, and more
improvisational than had been heard before. His bass playing was
considered an integral part of the "Motown Sound". He transcended the
standard "bass line" and created a duet with the singer. Prominent
bassists who have claimed Jamerson as a primary influence include
James Brown's Bernard Odum, Alan Gorrie, Rick Danko, Anthony Jackson,
Jack Bruce, John Entwistle, Bernard Edwards, Jason Newsted, Jaco
Pastorius, John Patitucci, John Paul Jones, Robert DeLeo, Mike Watt,
Billy Sheehan, Geddy Lee, Victor Wooten, Paul McCartney, Mike Mills,
Matt Noveskey and Matt Rubano
TT
Frankly I'm struggling to even recall any of their songs...
Maybe they're like Citizen Kane...once they achieve a status they'll
stay there forever regardless of their actual achievements/lack of.
That's cult status all right.
RichL
news:87eefeec-df35-422f...@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>> As for John D.'s comments (I'll address them here rather than in a
>> separate
>> post in response to him, since I'm in a hurry): Garcia as musical
>> genius?
>> Hey, don't get me wrong, he's the only musician whose portrait I have on
>> my
>> music room wall aside from members of the Beatles and Queen. But he was
>> a
>> cog in a wheel.
>
> Rolling Stone Magazine ranked Jerry Garcia 13th in their list of the
> 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. That Cog played separate from the
> wheel in many outfits, notably banjo in "Old & in the Way" (a band
> that did more to advance bluegrass to a wider audience than anything
> before or since), The New Riders of the Purple Sage, The Jerry Garcia
> Band, Legion of Mary, Garcia & Grisman, and several other side
> projects, usually involving no other members or cogs from The Grateful
> Dead. He's the guy playing pedal steel on "Teach Your Children", the
> CSNY hit from 1970. He was the virtual producer of the breakthrough
> Airplane album "Surrealistic Pillow". He played on records for
> everyone from Ornette Coleman to Warren Zevon.
Oh sure, I know most of that stuff, I'm talking more about his role in the
Dead.
But an interesting side comment: I bought that New Riders LP when it first
came out, and I had a friend who was a real steel player who sort of
snickered when he heard it.
Sure, I understand, I have Deadhead friends :-)
>
>> One more point. The "radical new approach" of a classically trained
>> musician playing bass as a co-lead instrument in a rock band had already
>> been done before the Dead came along. The guy who did it was named John
>> Entwistle, and the guitarist who he spurred to greater glory was named
>> Pete
>> Townshend. Just sayin'...
>
> As a Who fan, I never felt Entwhistle was that innovative. The Who &
> the Dead are mutual admiration societies, and they toured together
> occasionally. But Lesh's work as a live innovator leaves Entwhistle &
> the Who behind, certainly in terms of improvisation. I've seen the Who
> a few times, but never wanted to see again them the next night, too.
>
> And even if I accept your premise that Entwhistle did it first (which
> I really don't-- he may have been innovative in his own right, but not
> what Lesh was doing every night), you can't claim the Dead was
> influenced by it, at least not in creating their style. Didn't the Who
> debut in the US at Monterey? by 1967, The Dead was known as "The Good
> Old Grateful Dead", and their style was set before the Who was much of
> a presence.
Sure, I'm not claiming that they're copycats by any means. But "My
Generation" had "lead bass" solos, that was 1965 if I recall correctly. And
I do believe that that song was well known on this side of the pond :-) I
bought the Happy Jack LP when it first came out. '66. I actually liked
that older version of The Who better than the
Daltrey-as-rock-god-in-white-flowing-robes version, though Quadrophenia was
a bit of redemption for them.
DGDevin
"RichL" wrote in message
news:1OCdnSVE5Lj7yvTQ...@supernews.com...
> I like a lot of their structured songs. The jams? Meh.... And if the
> jams bored you, you weren't going to be thrilled at a Dead concert.
Sometimes the jams hit the wall and slid to the floor where they formed a
puddle. And others had the power to levitate the audience. That's what
happens when a band doesn't try to deliver the same show every
night--sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
> One more point. The "radical new approach" of a classically trained
> musician playing bass as a co-lead instrument in a rock band had already
> been done before the Dead came along. The guy who did it was named John
> Entwistle, and the guitarist who he spurred to greater glory was named
> Pete Townshend. Just sayin'...
Phil Lesh seems to think that his unconventional style of playing bass was
because he didn't know what he was doing, he just made it up after being
invited to join the band. Entwistle was self-taught as well, at least on
bass, but his motivation was more to be noticed in between the wild men he
shared the stage with. So he abandoned the instrument's traditional role
and made up his own, and frankly his style wouldn't have worked too well in
a lot of other bands. They both explored new ground for the bass and
enriched rock music in the process.
DGDevin
"Raja, The Great" wrote in message
news:bb84a80a-ed83-4e58...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Wrong, he was named James Jamerson....
> Jamerson is noted for expanding the role of the bass in popular music,
> which until that time largely consisted of root notes, fifths and
> simple repetitive patterns. [snip]
Anyone who thinks Rajafanboi wrote these words himself as opposed to cutting
and pasting them without attribution, raise your hand.
Let's see, let's get a count, that's..., nobody.
Raja, The Great
> "Raja, The Great" wrote in messagenews:bb84a80a-ed83-4e58...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
When did I say I wrote this myself, DGDouche?
RichL
news:BJKdnRaYbfEfKPTQ...@earthlink.com...
Well, at least he's expanding his horizons a bit. He's off the ZepFloYes
bit. By the way, I think a couple of years ago in one of Raja's incessant
"best musicians ever" thread, I mentioned Jamerson and he snickered.
billy
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can ccp!! wow! does this mean your opinions are borrowed as well?
DGDevin
"RichL" wrote in message
news:4MidnXs5DryMI_TQ...@supernews.com...
>> Anyone who thinks Rajafanboi wrote these words himself as opposed to
>> cutting and pasting them without attribution, raise your hand.
>>
>> Let's see, let's get a count, that's..., nobody.
> Well, at least he's expanding his horizons a bit.
If by that you mean he's misunderstanding a wider range of music and
stealing other people's writing on it, sure, he is spreading his infection
to other forms of music.
> He's off the ZepFloYes bit.
I have little doubt the same posters are still on his living room wall and
the homemade Led Zep action figures (converted GI Joes) are still lined up
on his nightstand so they're the first thing he sees in the morning. He
made the clothes and wigs himself too.
> By the way, I think a couple of years ago in one of Raja's incessant "best
> musicians ever" thread, I mentioned Jamerson and he snickered.
It's the same old story, another pointless list, more stolen writing posted
without attribution, more ignorance, more foolish opinions. He'll never
grow up, even if his parents are finally able to arrange a marriage for him
with some really desperate family, he'll be a giant child all his life.
John Doherty
> Yes, (The Grateful Dead) were a mega-cult band -- perhaps the greatest cult band
> ever, if fan loyalty is the measure. But "the greatest American rock
> and roll band"? I don't see any kind of case for that.
Greatness is not measured by how many number one hits a band has had.
And though a huge slice of America may know Truckin' and Touch of
Grey, millions of Americans also recognize scores of Grateful Dead
songs and covers. Anyone who went to an American college after 1970
grew up with the soundtrack of their live music. The Dead were also
key in introducing fans to huge swaths of music they wouldn't
otherwise know-- country & obscure blues & R & B come to mind.
The influence of the Dead is vastly underrated by people not familiar
with their music.
Here' s a list of contemporary and subsequent artists who acknowledge
a debt to the band:
Bob Dylan
Paul McCartney
Yes
Patti Smith
Tom Verlaine
Elvis Costello
Meat Puppets
Black Flag
Camper Van Beethoven
Allman Brothers
Phish
The Clash (Joe Strummer)
The Police (Sting)
Little Feat
In Phil Lesh's combos recently, many younger talents have joined &
played in Grateful Dead style, including Ryan Adams, Jackie Greene
Warren Haynes & Derek Trucks (the latter two mainstays of the
Allmans).
Raja, The Great
> On Feb 26, 5:19 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, (The Grateful Dead) were a mega-cult band -- perhaps the greatest cult band
> > ever, if fan loyalty is the measure. But "the greatest American rock
> > and roll band"? I don't see any kind of case for that.
>
> Greatness is not measured by how many number one hits a band has had.
> And though a huge slice of America may know Truckin' and Touch of
> Grey, millions of Americans also recognize scores of Grateful Dead
> songs and covers. Anyone who went to an American college after 1970
> grew up with the soundtrack of their live music. The Dead were also
> key in introducing fans to huge swaths of music they wouldn't
> otherwise know-- country & obscure blues & R & B come to mind.
>
> The influence of the Dead is vastly underrated by people not familiar
> with their music.
>
> Here' s a list of contemporary and subsequent artists who acknowledge
> a debt to the band:
>
> Bob Dylan
> Paul McCartney
> Yes
Yes? Can you cite the source. I highly doubt this. Yes' idea was to
mix the melody to Beatles with the virtuosity of Cream. Grateful Dead
had neither.
John Doherty
> On Feb 27, 8:30 am, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
> > Here' s a list of contemporary and subsequent artists who acknowledge
> > a debt to the band:
>
> > Bob Dylan
> > Paul McCartney
> > Yes
>
On Feb 27, 11:07 am, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes? Can you cite the source. I highly doubt this. Yes' idea was to
> mix the melody to Beatles with the virtuosity of Cream. Grateful Dead
> had neither.
Actually, if you listen to American Beauty & Workingman's Dead,
there's plenty of both. There was also a telling anecdote about
Clapton in the Bill Graham bio. When he was first playing the
Fillmore, locals were very excited because of the records he was
making. He showed up for soundcheck looking like a British professor,
and during it, played, note for note, the solos he would play that
night.
People in the audience at the shows might get the impression that it
was spontaneous-- because that's what the Dead, the Airplane and
Quicksilver, etc. were all about, but Clapton didn't do that. It was
more like penciling in spontaneity;-)
But, yes Yes was influenced by the Dead, according to their biographer
and original guitarist Peter Banks in "Beyond and Before":
"Surprisingly enough, another big influence on Yes was the second
album by The Grateful Dead, "Anthem of the Sun". There's a song on
there called 'That's It For The Other One' which remarkably sounds Yes-
like in the vocals, and in the kind of punctuatino stabs done in a
kind of orchestral way. I used to love that album because it was so
psychedelic."
end quote---
So you learn something new everyday, eh Raja?
Raja, The Great
Hmm... interesting. I will check that song out.
Ray
> On Feb 25, 3:10 pm, Ray <6sickstri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 1:17 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 11:25 am, Ray <6sickstri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 12:20 pm, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:
>
> > > > > 25.2.2011 16:54, richforman kirjoitti:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 24, 7:46 pm, "Raja, The Great"<zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595384/ns/today-entertainment/
>
> > > > > >> 1. The Beatles
> > > > > >> 2. The Rolling Stones
> > > > > >> 3. U2
> > > > > >> 4. The Grateful Dead
> > > > > >> 5. The Velvet Underground
> > > > > >> 6. Led Zeppelin
> > > > > >> 7. The Ramones
> > > > > >> 8. Pink Floyd
> > > > > >> 9. Bob Marley And The Wailers
> > > > > >> 10. Sly and the Family Stone
> > > > > > I'm really curious - did you find this interesting?
>
> > > > > > richforman
>
> > > > > Pretty interesting is what U2 does there. Also The Dead, Velvet and
> > > > > Ramones have found their way curiously to hearts of critics. What's Sly
> > > > > and the Family Stone?
>
> > > > > Also, Beatles and Bob Marley are rock? Right...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > bassist Larry Graham popularized the 'thumping and plucking' style
> > > > that is a staple of modern bass guitar.
>
> > > > And the Velvet Underground do not belong on that list by any standard
> > > > save that of the douchebag rock critic who is more influenced by hype
> > > > than the qualtiy of the music. The Velvets were the rock band
> > > > equivalent of the dreck that Andy Warhol cranked out of the "Silver
> > > > Factory". Just his clever way of pointing out that 'hip' new yorkers
> > > > will buy into anything if they think it's trendy.
>
> > > Bullshit. Velvet Underground and Nico was a great album and
> > > groundbreaking and heavily influenced many alternative rock bands of
> > > the 80s, 90s and 00s.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Why does it have to be more than three chords?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
One does not equal three, even for the largest values of one.
In order to have chord changes you need more than one chord. See where
I'm going here?
No, I didn't think you would.
Raja, The Great
You are wrong. VU played more than one chord. Have you ever really
heard their first album?
Joe Ramirez
> On Feb 26, 5:19 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, (The Grateful Dead) were a mega-cult band -- perhaps the greatest cult band
> > ever, if fan loyalty is the measure. But "the greatest American rock
> > and roll band"? I don't see any kind of case for that.
>
> Greatness is not measured by how many number one hits a band has had.
That's not what we're talking about. An artist arguably can be great
in some subcategory (e.g., "greatest jam band") based on narrow but
intense appeal and musical chops. "Greatest rock and roll band" in
general requires *broad* appeal -- indeed, almost culture-dominating
appeal, at least for a while. We're talking about nominating the
Grateful Dead to a position equivalent to that occupied by the Beatles
or Stones; you do recognize the incongruity of that, do you not?
> And though a huge slice of America may know Truckin' and Touch of
> Grey,
Let's not go overboard. Huge slice? These were relatively minor hits,
as hits go. And two songs 17 years apart do not exactly constitute an
undeniable musical edifice.
> millions of Americans also recognize scores of Grateful Dead
> songs and covers. Anyone who went to an American college after 1970
> grew up with the soundtrack of their live music.
Huh? "Anyone"?
I bought a CD of Dead covers (*Deadicated*) back in the '90s. The
number of songs I had ever heard in their original versions turned out
to be one or two.
> The Dead were also
> key in introducing fans to huge swaths of music they wouldn't
> otherwise know-- country & obscure blues & R & B come to mind.
>
> The influence of the Dead is vastly underrated by people not familiar
> with their music.
Covert influence /= "greatest American rock and roll band." To earn
that title, the music must have enormous *direct* impact. How could
the greatest rock band be one for which most rock fans are unfamiliar
with its music?
Raja, The Great
Grateful Dead never made it to Asia, surely. Bands like Beatles, Led
Zeppelin etc toured to Japan and were massively popular there. I think
a band which does not Universal appeal has no claim to be considered
among the greatest. I say Jethro Tull has a bigger claim to greatness
than the Dead.
DGDevin
"Raja, The Great" wrote in message
news:6bec207c-b1e7-4904...@t15g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> Grateful Dead never made it to Asia, surely. Bands like Beatles, Led
> Zeppelin etc toured to Japan and were massively popular there. I think
> a band which does not Universal appeal has no claim to be considered
> among the greatest. I say Jethro Tull has a bigger claim to greatness
> than the Dead.
So by the arbitrary fanboi criteria "Raja" employs, the Stones and the Who
don't qualify as great bands since they didn't perform in Japan until long
after they were trend-setters. Of course he'll instantly move the goalposts
when he realizes his rules make him look like an ass.
In "Raja's" tiny world a band with a career that lasted three decades with
umpteen million recordings and concert tickets sold, a band influential on
other musicians, a band given credit for creating a whole genre of
music--that band isn't "great" because Rajafanboi isn't into them. But
bands Rajafanboi *is* into qualify as "great" because, well because he says
so.
It's like listening to a child explain that cake and ice cream are the
greatest foods because he likes them the best.