If live performances are any consideration, and they are to me, it really only boils down to the Who and Zep, both of which are bands I really like a lot.
I’ll go with Zep…the juggernaut of the 1970’s, just for debauchery’s sake alone.
Zeppelin’s music - I have grown tired of it over time, I think because there was no escaping it when I was in High School. Rolling Stones - well, I like them, I just like The Who better.
So I went with The Who, as I know it really doesn’t matter who I vote for - the Beatles are going to win this anyway. (edited to add: yep - after voting I see they’re ahead by slightly more than a 2:1 margin over second place LZ)
Since the OP somehow forgot to put the Grateful Dead in the poll, the answer’s the Stones. Led Zep are OK if I’m in the mood for it, but despite their obvious ability Page and Plant both have a style that doesn’t really do it for me. The Who I just don’t really get, to be honest. There’s obviously a lot of great songs and stunning performances there, but I just don’t see the… totality, I guess, of it the way other people do.
The Beatles took other people’s ideas and packaged them for mass consumption. Bland, unoriginal, and only moderately talented as musicians and singers, the only thing they did was to be in the right place at the right time, with the right record collection.
Name me another band in the 70s that blew up a goddamn pipe bomb in their drumset on live TV.
I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry.
Well, every thread mentioning the Beatles seems to require at least one post dismissing them as an unoriginal “boy band.” Maybe if all you ever heard was Beatles R&B covers, I could somehow at least imagine that viewpoint, but calling the Beatles unoriginal is pretty much factually incorrect, insofar as facts can be injected into a subject that is largely subjective. It’s similar to the “oh, Shakespeare wasn’t all that” type of literary criticism.
Cry. To state that the Beatles just repackaged other people’s ideas is completely ludicrous. The Beatles were on the leading edge their entire career.
Voted The Who, because the poll lacked a The Kinks option.
Vocal harmonies first.
Meaningful lyrics second (but very close).
Technical ability third.
So, really, Beatles & Who, then Stones, then Zep.
–G.
I am chiming in with Pink Floyd.
I had to get a marker out and write that option on my screen so I could vote for it.
I had no other choice.
Leading edge would be pushing it I think. Like Elvis and the Stones, they all had their roots in Blues and Jazz, basically bringing black music into the mainstream. Repackaging would also be inaccurate. They were certainly pioneers, just like the Beastie Boys or RunDMC, but even the pioneers brought their carts from wherever they started. Imho, I think the real genius of the Beatles was the songwriting synergy between Lennon and McCartney, that they were never really able to replicate after the split.
To me, the real leading edge acts of that time period were David Bowie and the Beach Boys.
However, I did just read an article about their early careers playing the German strip clubs, and they were certainly master musicians. But again, they weren’t as influential as say Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton.
The Beatles weren’t as influential as Hendrix or Clapton? :dubious:
In terms of how people played instruments.
Yes, I thought WPLJ was still in business, maybe as a top-40 or adult contemporary station?
Voted for The Who
Agreed, but the Beatles’ records also exhibit brilliant production and arranging, thanks to George Martin, Paul McCartney and a few very talented engineers. Brian Wilson might have excelled them, but his peak period only ran from about 1964-67.
I’d argue that Paul McCartney’s approach to bass was quite influential. And Ringo’s drumming, too. Plus you have the whole, you know, songwriting thing.
Pretty much. Most influential. Ever.
This is kind of an embarrassing thing to ask, but if there’s any place, it’d be this thread . . . What, exactly, is so great about Led Zeppelin? I mean, pretty much every person whose musical opinion I respect is a fan, so I’m assuming I’m missing something, but their music doesn’t really affect me. I do like their poetry, and there defiantly are a few songs of theirs I agree are amazing, but as for the fanatic devotion I just . . . don’t get it. The majority of their stuff is just an overload of rock to me. For all those who voted for them, what songs (apart from, you know, “Stairway to Heaven” and “Kashmir”) would you say makes them one of the greats?
A question I’ve been meaning to throw out there for ages, but keep forgetting:
Would the psychedelic music movement have happened without Tomorrow Never Knows? Would it have happened at the time that it did if that song didn’t exist? Is it overblown to suggest that The Beatles were largely responsible? [It very well might be…]
Oh, and that’s “definitely,” not “defiantly.”
I would say the psychedelic movement was largely happening without the Beatles, but they were the ones who brought into the mainstream - which can’t be underestimated, as it’s questionable whether that would have happened in such a dramatic way without them. At the very least, the movement would have been delayed by a couple of years or decades without them; at worst, it would have never gained traction with the general public and would have always been very obscure.