Of course.
Chubby Checker
The Who > The Kinks > The Rolling Stones > The Beatles
CheeseDonkey with his favorite band. (He’s wearing the headphones.)
I’d switch the Kinks and the Stones, but I agree with you there.
Ratt
no you’re thinking of the Kinks.
Van Halen did a cover version of that song, though.
Chicago
what i described did come at two different time periods.
when they were new and doing their simple lyrics music people claimed that they were totally new and original without derivation even though connections to other music and even song credits showed that not to be true.
later with more complex lyrics people interpreted their lyrics as sacred texts. schools and churches would have classes and discussions about the lyrics. though noninstitutional fans and individual cultists went deeper into it. that also happened to some degree with Dylan and Simon and Garfunkel. people dug through anything from all of them.
All that I can determine from listening to DeYoung’s singing is that he was heavily influenced by the Chipmunks. Possibly Theodore.
The Sir Bedevere - style logic here makes me wonder if we’re being as much whooshed as trolled.
Ditto his suggestion that Van Halen is ‘real music’ while the Beatles aren’t.
Any Top Ten Album List that includes both Dylan’s Blonde on Blonde and his Highway 61 Revisited can’t be all bad.
But they were both derivative of the Rutles.
That’s a very Boomer list, I’m noticing. I’m looking at the top hundred, and there’s a lot of stuff from the 60s and 70s, and very little after 1980.
That’s because no decent music has been made since 1980, silly.
Well, the aqueduct, for one thing. And the sanitation. There’s also the roads. Irrigation. Medicine. Education. Public baths. And it’s safe to walk the streets at night now, they certainly know how to keep order. Wonderful fellows, those Romans.
Reminds me of a coworker coming in and complaining about the first Lord of the Rings movie right after it came out. His main complaint? It was too derivative. Orcs? They couldn’t think of anything better than that old drivel?
OP…pick a band you love today. Lets see how strong they are doing in 2065.
Stop it, you’re killing me!
Kind of a pansy list, too. Nothing heavier than Nirvana in the top 30.
i wouldn’t go that far.
74 is a better divider.
No, that’s not true. The Beatles played plenty of covers from the start–a fact that was known to those of us who listened. They covered American artists neglected during the reign of “the heinous Frankie-Bobbies of South Philly.”* Of course, their first hit singles (in the USA) were originals; but we bought the LP’s & read the song credits. Were some of the “adult” critics unaware of their roots? I didn’t care…
By the time the Beatles’ lyrics got weird, I was studying real literature in school & was beyond the reach of Church. But Dylan got the serious analysis. I remember Tommy Hall explicating the inner meaning of the lyrics on John Wesley Harding; I think they tied in to “John The Revelator.” (Revelations has always appealed to the weak of mind.) Of course, Tommy wrote “Slip Inside This House”–which fried a few brain cells in its day…
Simon & Garfunkel? Paul Simon was the writer, who went through Pop & Village Folkie stages. Pleasant & pretty, never “deep.” (Not that non-deep music can’t be enjoyed.)
- From Creem–can’t remember who wrote it. Rolling Stone stopped being “about” the music, although they printed some fine journalism. Those bats in the desert? Creem & Crawdaddy were much better…
(Currently listening to “The First Booke of Songs” by John Dowland.)
This all reminds me of some idiot a few years ago that posited that the White Stripes were, like, the best band evar.