London Fog wrote:
Gary, you should have made it 5 or even 10 bands.


Cream - The only living guitar god, still kicking ass!

The Who - Keith Moon, say no more!

Creedence - John Fogerty, maybe the most amazing voice...ever, imho!

The Beach Boys - Does fun pop get any better than this?

I totally LOVE Cream - "Sunshine of your Love" is one of the greatest rock songs EVER!!!

Loved Who's rock opera "Tommy"!!!

I could not have made it through my teens without the Beach Boys...I would certainly have to put them in my top 10 for the 20th century!  (I even loved their more obscure albums like "Wild Honey" and "Smiley Smile".)  "Pet Sounds" was an absolute genius masterpiece!

Koryn Locke wrote:
You could argue, that The Doors were The Doors because of Jim Morrison, and you could argue that The Rolling Stones were The Rolling Stones due to having Mick Jagger.

So, while those might technically be "bands," they derived their identities through their seminal vocalists.

No one would give a flying fuck about Big Brother and the Holding Company, if they hadn't been fronted by Janis Joplin.

The Rolling Stones would be nothing without Keith Richards and Charlie Watts, but especially Richards!

London Fog wrote:
Ok, let's give you the benefit of the doubt, so men don't own the 20th century, can you name one female band that might have done?

Only one comes to mind is The Supremes.

I would agree with The Supremes.

Joan Jett and the Blackhearts. Blondie.

Arguably, Siouxie Sioux - depending on whether you grew up mainstream, or punk rock.

Koryn Locke wrote:

I would agree with The Supremes.

Joan Jett and the Blackhearts. Blondie.

Blondie were fantastic...she was sooo hot! Our TV went into meltdown when Heart Of Glass came on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiBEFr20hE4

OMFG, those legs!

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
Bands in the History Books?

U2.

not for their music as much as their polictical and economical contributions to humanity.

Yep, definitely, such a great band!

csjacksonphotography wrote:
500 years from now, the bands that will still be talked about will be:

The Beatles

The Famous Flames

Kraftwerk

The Jackson 5

The Chess, Stax and Motown Records' house bands.

Hells yes!

London Fog wrote:

Ok, let's give you the benefit of the doubt, so men don't own the 20th century, can you name one female band that might have done?

Only one comes to mind is The Supremes.

Not band, singing group. There is a difference.

MKPhoto wrote:
You can sway me from Queen to Led Zeppelin.............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 9u0#t=116s

Cherrystone wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 9u0#t=116s

Fantastic, thanks for the link!

Gawd, Zep were/are incredible!

Cherrystone wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 9u0#t=116s

Nod of approval at 17:11

MKPhoto wrote:

Nod of approval at 17:11

I use that clip when I'm working in post.....15 times in a row.

Gary Melton wrote:
...Okay...my memory has been prodded and I've been convinced.  I'm adding Led Zeppelin as the 4th candidate for second half 20th century history...

In that case, put the Doors as my 4th choice.

Cherrystone wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 9u0#t=116s

Everyone belongs there at the Kennedy Center to honor Led Zeppelin that night...except for Kid Rock...'sorry, but that was an absolute travesty IMHO...

(Heart gave the absolute BEST Led Zeppelin performance!)

Gary Melton wrote:

Everyone belongs there at the Kennedy Center to honor Led Zeppelin that night...except for Kid Rock...'sorry, but that was an absolute travesty IMHO...

Maybe Jason & Heart made up for it. I was thrilled by that cover.....really thrilled.

Cherrystone wrote:

Maybe Jason & Heart made up for it. I was thrilled by that cover.....really thrilled.

I agree - Heart was FANTASTIC!!!

Cherrystone wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 9u0#t=116s

The amazing thing here is how totally acceptable and appropriate it was to have Jack Black introduce Led Zeppelin.  Here's a guy that started out years ago as something of a clown who didn't appear to be all that talented...but who has grown and developed into a major talent, both as a legitimate actor (see "The Holiday") and a pretty accomplished musician (see "School of Rock" and his performances as part of Tenacious D).

He started out as something of a lightweight, who I can now see as someone who will at some point be getting high honors for a lifetime body of work!

Eliza C wrote:
The Beatles? well maybe in children's books.

Rock and Roll is not for children.

Jeez. Pompous and condescending much?

The Beatles will be forgotten in two hundred years but Bauhaus will be remembered in centuries to come? They're barely remembered now.

Eliza C wrote:
Bill Haley and The Comets
The Rolling Stones
The Sex Pistols


And personally I'd add Bauhaus and The Sisters of Mercy for the more discerning among us. Sometimes you need the basics before you can progress to the more sophisticated.

The Beatles? well maybe in children's books.

Rock and Roll is not for children.

I know he's in a bit of trouble at the moment but the Beatles never ever did anything this powerful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq7xyjU-jsU

....and it didn't need The Beatles to make it so. The other three yes.

In 200 years time when The Beatles are forgotten that will be appreciated still.

In the long term in culture Art v pop Art always wins.....there was pop in Mozarts's day but few of us know it.

'Sorry, but in my book - The Beatles may very well be the most talented musicians in the history of the world, and I think there are more than a few people who would agree with me.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the things that sets The Beatles apart is how they TOTALLY reinvented themselves multiple times in a short 7-1/2 year career.  It would be easy to make a case to say that they are the top 3 bands of all time all by themselves.

Orca Bay Images wrote:
Elvis.

The Beatles.

The Sex Pistols.



This isn't about your favorite musicians. This is about historically significant musicians.

I could have gone with Elvis but chose Bill Haley. Either would do. The Pistols we agree on.
The Beatles I never got never will get and nobody has ever been able to justify them to me out of popular context. Everybody's whose opinion I respect will choose The Stones over them every time.

Eliza C wrote:
Everybody's whose opinion I respect will choose The Stones over them every time.

Confirmation bias.

Eliza C wrote:
Bill Haley and The Comets
The Rolling Stones
The Sex Pistols


And personally I'd add Bauhaus and The Sisters of Mercy for the more discerning among us. Sometimes you need the basics before you can progress to the more sophisticated.

The Beatles? well maybe in children's books.

Rock and Roll is not for children.

I know he's in a bit of trouble at the moment but the Beatles never ever did anything this powerful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq7xyjU-jsU

....and it didn't need The Beatles to make it so. The other three yes.

In 200 years time when The Beatles are forgotten that will be appreciated still.

In the long term in culture Art v pop Art always wins.....there was pop in Mozarts's day but few of us know it.

I love Bauhaus and Sisters of Mercy, but honestly, I never heard of either of those bands until probably 2005, when I started hanging out at "goth" clubs.

I'd been listening to Led Zeppelin and The Doors since high school, because they were so culturally pervasive.

Bauhaus is still pretty obscure to a lot of people. You may think I'm joking, but I'm not.

Orca Bay Images wrote:

Jeez. Pompous and condescending much?

The Beatles will be forgotten in two hundred years but Bauhaus will be remembered in centuries to come? They're barely remembered now.

I think the Beatles are kids music. I never got it.
If that is condescending so be it. To me it is just pop not rock and roll. Commercial safe and packaged and nothing raw and wild. Sanitised for consumption. Sorry my opinion.

Koryn Locke wrote:
I love Bauhaus and Sisters of Mercy, but honestly, I never heard of either of those bands until probably 2005, when I started hanging out at "goth" clubs.

I'd been listening to Led Zeppelin and The Doors since high school, because they were so culturally pervasive.

Bauhaus is still pretty obscure to a lot of people. You may think I'm joking, but I'm not.

Yes I know. What is popular is not necessarily what is important except to marketing people.  It is what is genuinely innovative that counts. Bauhaus changed the tone of rock and roll and elevated it into Art. The name of the band was chosen for a reason.

We are a generally artistic community here under a wooly umbrella. Half of that community is influenced by the 'darker' side of human nature. None of that would have existed if it were not for Bauhaus. Much of what we see here is down to those guys. Style/fashion music cinema and art - the dark wave in all that is owed to Bauhaus whether people realise it or not.

But The Doors have to be up there too for similar reasons.

Eliza C wrote:

I think the Beatles are kids music. I never got it.
If that is condescending so be it. To me it is just pop not rock and roll. Commercial safe and packaged and nothing raw and wild. Sanitised for consumption. Sorry my opinion.

+1

Eliza C wrote:
I think the Beatles are kids music. I never got it.
If that is condescending so be it. To me it is just pop not rock and roll. Commercial safe and packaged and nothing raw and wild. Sanitised for consumption. Sorry my opinion.

You obviously have only heard a small number of songs The Beatles released, because there is absolutely no way to characterize their entire body of work the same way you can describe the work of most other bands.  Listen to "Meet The Beatles" and "The White Album" (for example) and you'd be hard pressed to guess they were both recorded by the same band, if you didn't already know it.

Listen to any 2 albums by The Beatles and tell me they sound anything alike or share much in common in the way of style or theme.  The Beatles were about 4 or 5 different groups over 7-1/2 years, and each iteration was simply brilliant!

Listen to the soundtrack of "I Am Sam" for a good sampling of Beatles tunes.

Gary Melton wrote:

You obviously have only heard a small number of songs The Beatles released, because there is absolutely no way to characterize their entire body of work the same way you can describe the work of most other bands.  Listen to "Meet The Beatles" and "The White Album" (for example) and you'd be hard pressed to guess they were both recorded by the same band, if you didn't already know it.

Listen to any 2 albums by The Beatles and tell me they sound anything alike or share much in common in the way of style or theme.  The Beatles were about 4 or 5 different groups over 7-1/2 years, and each iteration was simply brilliant!

No, it was commercial clap-trap designed to make money.

Gary Melton wrote:

'Sorry, but in my book - The Beatles may very well be the most talented musicians in the history of the world, and I think there are more than a few people who would agree with me.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the things that sets The Beatles apart is how they TOTALLY reinvented themselves multiple times in a short 7-1/2 year career.  It would be easy to make a case to say that they are the top 3 bands of all time all by themselves.

The Beatles are a lot of things.....but "talented musicians" isn't something I would use.

Gary Melton wrote:

You obviously have only heard a small number of songs The Beatles released, because there is absolutely no way to characterize their entire body of work the same way you can describe the work of most other bands.  Listen to "Meet The Beatles" and "The White Album" (for example) and you'd be hard pressed to guess they were both recorded by the same band, if you didn't already know it.

Listen to any 2 albums by The Beatles and tell me they sound anything alike or share much in common in the way of style or theme.  The Beatles were about 4 or 5 different groups over 7-1/2 years, and each iteration was simply brilliant!

No sorry I have heard it all and I think they make Johnny Cash seem like The Sex Pistols.

Cherrystone wrote:
The Beatles are a lot of things.....but "talented musicians" isn't something I would use.

Fucking A!
I get the feeling I am stepping on a scared cow but I just don't get them at all. I feel like the kid with the Emperor's new clothes.
Maybe I'm tone deaf or something

Eliza C wrote:
I think the Beatles are kids music. I never got it.
If that is condescending so be it. To me it is just pop not rock and roll. Commercial safe and packaged and nothing raw and wild. Sanitised for consumption. Sorry my opinion.

Gary Melton wrote:
You obviously have only heard a small number of songs The Beatles released, because there is absolutely no way to characterize their entire body of work the same way you can describe the work of most other bands.

As the Beatles grew up, so did their music. Their earlier hits were definitely "kids' music." Not arguing with that. They matured a lot musically. That being said, I never cared that much for the Beatles -- mostly, they are sort of a musical dead horse, that's still being beaten by popular culture. The classic rock milieu is just sort of over-saturated itself with Beatles tunes.

Lohkee wrote:

No, it was commercial clap-trap designed to make money.

Yeah.....clap-trap that turned music in a 180 in a very short time.

Call it whatever you want...but it is what it is. In 500 years, someone will read Google cache and laugh that you wrote this.

Eliza C wrote:

Fucking A!
I get the feeling I am stepping on a scared cow but I just don't get them at all. I feel like the kid with the Emperor's new clothes.
Maybe I'm tone deaf or something

Note I specified musicians while a Beatle. Things changed, & I don't define musicians as songwriters either.

Cherrystone wrote:

The Beatles are a lot of things.....but "talented musicians" isn't something I would use.

You don't have to be a great instrumentalist to be a great musician.  The Beatles were certainly not great instrumentalists, but they created and performed a hell of a lot of great music, which in my book - makes them great musicians.

Cherrystone wrote:
Yeah.....clap-trap that turned music in a 180 in a very short time.

Call it whatever you want...but it is what it is. In 500 years, someone will read Google cache and laugh that you wrote this.

Chuckles. So did the Monkeys. The Beatles were a commercial band. Did they have some really good songs? Sure. So did the Monkeys.

Greatest of the 20th? Ummmmm, yeah, we'll just put that in the "real pizza" category.