I’m going with Robert Plant.
To me, a rock star implies the lifestyle - and it’s not expanding your mind, like Hendrix, or being a weirdo, like Ozzy, it’s just good old rock and roll debauchery.
Add another vote for Mr. Mojo Rising.
Honorable mention to Jimi Hendrix.
I don’t care about the criteria, the answer’s Elvis.
Having said that… Mick is the most ‘Rock and Roll Star’. Which doesn’t make him the best musician. He’s the one everyone tries to imitate. If you draw a picture of a rock star, it’s Mick smashing guitars, screwing groupies… and other rock stars, doing drugs, and wearing tight leather.
Keith Richards.
Not much of a showman, is he?
His band has done okay with him on lead guitar, or so I’ve heard.
It’s Elvis. I don’t agree with the criterion that they have to be their own writers (even though I personally greatly prefer the ones that are). Elvis is the excption there. He is still the gold standard. He literally invented rock stardom, and no one has ever touched him in terms of stage presence, showmanship, talent, legacy and all the rest (sex appeal I’m in no position to judge for any of them, don’t care, and don’t see how it has anything to do with music).
From the list, I’d pick Jagger, who is more or less synonomous with the word “rock star,” is the greatest frontman of all time, and one of the best rock songwriters.
Why isn’t muscianship on the list, by the way. Shouldn’t actual musical/instrumental ability count for something? That should be the most important thing of all, certainly more important than sex appeal.
Ahem:
It doesn’t, but it has everything in the world to do with stardom in general, and rock stardom in particular.
You picked Elvis - what Elvis had more of than anything else, the thing that made him a star that he would never have been a star without, was sex appeal. His looks, his voice, his moves, his style… It was all sex, all the time, top to bottom, back to front.
Cuz he gets to play while Mick gives people something to look at…
I believe musical talent is #1 on the list.
I do agree that Elvis is absolutely the quintessential rock star, but I see the OP’s point. Elvis was more of a synecdoche of a movement as opposed to a creator himself. Hendrix may have been the best musician of the bunch, but he’s not the mega-idol that the OP is calling for; according to one of the “Battle of the Sexes” games, most women don’t even know who he is–and indeed, none of the women I was playing with at the time (all over 40) could ID him.
So I went with Springsteen. Amazing musician who connects with an audience better than anyone I’ve ever seen.
Sometimes being able to play an instrument really well is showmanship all by itself. Eric Clapton doesn’t exactly race around like Angus Young, but is still a good showman purely by virtue of his musicianship. He gave one of the best performances in the history of MTV’s Unplugged show, and basically sat on a stool playing an acoustic guitar the whole time.
Why isn’t Paul McCartney on the list? I’d say he fits the criteria at least as well as John Lennon. He may be less mythic, and have less of the rock star persona, but he has arguably more musical talent, and he’s done more performing (i.e. rocking) post-Beatles than John did.
I also think Ray Davies should at least be on the list, though he doesn’t outshine the competition. I’m pretty sure he easily satisfies all the criteria, except perhaps sex appeal—which I’m not qualified to judge, but I will admit he doesn’t have as much sheer larger-than-life star quality or charisma as some of the others on the list.
I missed the “musical talent” criterion being at the top of the list. My bad.
Personally, while they might be more talented than anyone on the list (and as a duo, almost certainly), I don’t consider either of them “rock stars.” Both are lacking that certain edge. Paul is far too, well, nice. Lennon could be a bit of a jerk and a provocateur, but that’s it. (I mean, wasn’t the most legal trouble for either of them when Paul was arrested in Japan for pot possession? Was John ever in ANY legal trouble?) Plus, while the Lennon/McCartney duo dominated The Beatles, there was never a point where just one of them did.
I see the argument for Elvis, but, man, those Vegas years really drag him down in my eyes. I was nowhere near alive (hell, my mom wasn’t alive) for his peak, so perhaps I’m unable to fully appreciate that.
My answer is Jagger, without hesitation. Anytime an up-and-coming band has an electrifying frontman, Jagger is always, always the standard they’re held to. And while the Stones haven’t put out a noteworthy album in ages, from what I hear, the band, and Jagger, still puts on a hell of a show. Plus, I’m pretty sure the man is still dating models, and he’s nearly 70. Rock star.
When I think of the 1950’s I think of **Elvis **and **Chuck Berry **- I would push for Little Richard, Buddy Holly and Eddie Cochran, but Elvis and Chuck are at the tippy top
When I think of the 1960’s, it’s The Beatles, The Stones, **Hendrix **and Dylan. Clapton in his various guises is below that.
When I think of the 70’s I think of The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath - and The Ramones and The Clash. I love Queen and Freddie, but have them a half-step behind. (yes, most got started in the 60’s but in my brain they are 70’s bands)
When I think of the 80’s - things get even more fragmented and harder to document - they lead to Nirvana in the 90’s, who represent a big single movement…
So - while the thread makes for an interesting discussion, I am not going to try to boil it down.
And while Elvis may not have been a deeply technical musician, to question his musical talent, even if limited to his vocal work, is just silly. He could do aggressive rock n’ roll AND slow ballads with the best of them…
To be perfectly frank, when I was putting together the poll names, after I wrote Bowie and Jagger I was stuck for a long time, so Jagger coming out on top is far from surprising. I think in the end he really is the quintessential rock star.
I think it’s Elvis, for the reason’s everyone has said. He did it first, and in most cases, better than everyone else. He was really the first “rock star”
But, if you’re going to include songwriting along with talent, showmanship, and stage presence, I mean really there’s Freddie Mercury and then there’s everybody else.
A funny thing though is that when I hear the phrase “rock star” the first thing that comes to mind is a guy with long blond hair jumping around on stage in front of a massive drum kit with tons of lights who goes backstage after the show and gets hammered and bangs groupies all night. IOW, David Lee Roth. He’s far from the most talented in terms of singing, but he fits the bill in a lot of other ways.
I think it’s Jagger then Plant. The problem with Bowie and even moreso with EJ is that neither is really full on rock n’ roll except in the broadest sense. Do the words “rock n’ roll” evoke “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” or “Daniel”?