The Beatles as “soft rock”? Heavens, no! That makes them sound like Air Supply. When they rocked, they weren’t soft, and when they were soft, they weren’t rock—they were pop or something else.
A vote for The Who here. And the reason(and I suspect that many Who fans would agree) is that Pete has written so many songs that just seemed to speak to me. I love a great many bands, and a great many songs, but very,very few of them have consistently connected with me in that same way.
As a native of Kingston, Ontario, I’m obliged to vote for The Tragically Hip. It’s a municipal bylaw.
They did rock awfully hard, though. Christ, what a live act.
Two pages into this, and I have to come in here and educate you folks. This is insulting, because the greatest Rock and Roll band ever happens to be the one that I don’t even see mentioned here.
The greatest Rock and Roll band has to be a band that has been around forever making number one hits, and is still creating new music that is hitting the charts. Unlike The Stones and The Beatles, etc. who are only milking the songs they wrote decades ago, this band is still out there hitting the charts hard with new music after all of these years and have consistently evolved throughout Rock and Roll’s history. When is the last time The Stones or the Beatles as a band wrote a top 20 song?
I’m sorry, but the greatest Rock and Roll Band is the band that has held it together and still kicking ass with new material.
That band is Aerosmith.
You have been educated.
Well, except that everything since Rocks by them has been either mediocre or outright sucked. (I can make an exception for Pump, even though I don’t particularly like that album. Toys in the Attic and Rocks are incredible, though.)
It depends on where you draw the line for rock ‘n’ roll. For example, I can’t really compare somebody like The Cocteau Twins or My Bloody Valentine or Metallica or even Shellac or Xiu Xiu and say they’re really updated versions of any previous band. Or, heck, if 1980 is your demarcation, how bout somebody like Sonic Youth or the ever-quirky Pixies. Sure, you can find influences and similarities between them and, say, Pere Ubu, but they’re really quite unique. Maybe Metallica borrowed a bit from Sabbath, but they were creating a new genre as they went. But all these bands have moved beyond what you might consider the rock idiom, so I may be comparing apples to pineapples here.
If you’re talking rock and roll as in straight-ahead, balls to the wall, blues-based rock then, yeah, rock is dead and everything from here on out will be a rehash. We’ve exhausted that idiom. But there’s still plenty of room for experimentation with rock instrumentation.
As for the OP, I have to say, hands down, The Beatles win.
Yes there is, and I’m a Television fan. Marquee Moon is a seminal rock album, and Adventure is great, too, but Television has neither the broad catalog, musical flexibility, or songs to even come close to challenging the Beatles.
As much as I like to look forward in music and am very optimistic that there are untold avenues of pop left to explore, I’m afraid that it’s possible that The Beatles will be the greatest pop/rock band the world will ever see.
Meh. Rolling Stones Mini-Me’s. Some good, if derivative, songs, if in the early days, sure, but nothing listenable since Permanent Vacation: let’s face it, they’re a singles band who struggle to fill a single CD with Exile On Main Street and Beggar’s Banquet discards. You have been re-educated.
straight rock n roll - think I have to go with the Kinks. 4 guys, loud guitars, flashpots. Live they were just freakin’ awesome the multiple times I saw them.
I’d say the Stones were a lot more R&B if you’re splitting hairs.
I wouldn’t have a problem with the Who in the top spot either.
Beatles - meh. Pop music and when was the last time they did a live gig? Was it 1969 and split up when 1971?
Need to make it a decade of being a recording touring band in my book to even be considered.
I guess that would really depend on when you thought their prime was.
It would also depend on definition of best. I would define it as “Most play for the longest time on radio stations that claim they play Rock.” Using this definition it’s gotta be between the Stones and Led Zep.
“Number one hits”? Bit of hyperbole there. Aerosmith has had only one #1 single and two #1 albums in their entire career. You have been educated.
Well, if we’re talking rawk 'n roll, it has to be late 60s - early 70s, British, virtuousity with musicians, classic songs, excess (drug use, money, groupies), and death. So while the Stones and The Who are in the running, it absolutely has to go to Led Zeppelin.
(And I’m not even a huge fan…)
Love The Clash, The Smiths, The Pixies, but I somehow don’t see them as rock and roll…
Though they lack any hits or much mainstream acceptance I nominate Fugazi. They rock and roll.
a second for the tragically hip.
the. hip. are. god.
sure, with music at work & in violet light, they have slid into something along the a.c / s.r lines, but up to here, road apples, fully completely, day for night, and trouble at the henhouse (and arguably phantom power – which has its own magic, even if not a strict rock & roll disc) are the best string of roughly a half dozen albums ever put together by one band. and live between us is one of, if not the, greatest live albums ever released.
to round out the top five, i’d have to go with pearl jam, ac/dc, led zepplin, and guns ‘n’ roses… the order depending on my mood. … and if i’m in the right mood, i might even toss one of those to include the who.
I think Beatles are hard to beat (no pun intended). Too much influential activity generated from a single quartet to ignore.
But I think Van Halen has been overlooked on this thread. When I was a kid, learning to play Led Zeppelin songs on my old Strat, hearing Van Halen for the first time was like a religious experience. Eddie Van Halen almost single-handedly revolutionized the way rock guitar was played (Randy Rhodes also had a hand in it, but Eddie was first). The blazing pull-offs and hammers-ons, that spinning-out-of-control sound, and his virtuoso usage of the Floyd Rose locking tremolo (only Frank Marino saw its potential before Eddie) are emulated in countless instances. Eddie’s importance is less evident today because the type of rock that he primarily influenced has fallen out of favor, but that’s not Eddie’s fault.
Also, the attitude of Van Halen, that party hard, who-gives-a-f*ck attitude (which was probably in large part due to Diamond Dave’s influence) put the fun back into rock and roll, and really had a “centering” effect on rock. That is, rather than being socially conscious, or semi-mystical, or dark and brooding, or “southern fried”, psychedelic, or folksy, Van Halen yanked it all back and just had fun with it. No dissertations on war, or poverty, or class struggle, no Tolkein-esque mandolin solos, no pipe organs, no thoughtful soliloquies on the meaning of life. Just good ol’ fashion, get in the car, drive fast, forget your troubles and party hard, "hey baby, going my way?” rock and roll. That’s the core of what rock music is in my book, and they did it better than anyone.
AC/DC had a similar effect, but with less talent on the guitar (all due respect to Angus).
I like your argument, but you aren’t giving Ringo enough credit. Photograph is one of the greatest “lost love” song, and *The No-No song * is timeless.
“And he wasn’t joking!”
I remember going to see the Stones together with ZZ Top in Dallas back around '80 or so. As I was listening to the radio on the way in, a local DJ asked a fan outside the venue what he thought about the Stones being here. Heh, the guy said “Screw the Stones man, I’m here to see ZZ Top.”
Have to go with the Stones, but I lean towards blues based rock.
Pink Floyd - Yes - Emerson, Lake and Palmer - Bad Company - Queen - Supertramp - Led Zeplin - Jefferson Airplane/Starship - Bachman Turner Overdrive - The Moody Blues - Cream - Yardbirds
You do know that The No-No Song was written by Hoyt Axton, right?