It’s a loose term. Anyway, it’s not nearly so difficult to make a case for Sonic Youth being a punk band, and neither of those things are relevant to this thread.
I am impressed by your knowledge of the period, and you are right. But I thought I remembered seeing on the news when the Beatles first came to America a corresponding news item about how not everyone had Beatlemania, that some people thought the “British invasion” was somehow an attack on “American values,” for instance because of the longish hair. This was not the same as the later incident provoked by John Lennon’s ill-favored remark about Jesus. I cannot find any mention of this from Googling; I was fairly young, perhaps my memory is embroidered. None-the-less, you might be interested in glancing at this web page I did find. It somewhat resembles what I yet seem to remember, but is very far fetched and “way out there”:
http://www.illuminati-news.com/rock_and_mc.htm
“…the scurrilous Ed Sullivan who had been coached by the conspirators as to the role he was to play” :eek:
Ha! Erm, I hadn’t heard the conspiracy theory angle before, and I somehow doubt it was a very popular idea even at the time… I think it’s more likely that the Beatles’ “attack on American values” was their concern over the legions of young American girls dying to throw themselves at the moptopped lads.
Edit: After some more reading… “12 atonal music?” Is this guy for real?
Oh well…(heavy sigh) if we must be accurate, Queen were never at the top and shouldn’t even feature in your list. An interesting and clever glam rock band but second tier. Still, A Night At The Opera remains a definitive rock album.
The Eagles…good effort, Joe Walsh moved ahead better on his own, so I sort of grant you that one.
But the rest? Cream and Blind Faith were incandescent bands, totally alone in their milieu. Clapton did ok afterwards but he never reached the heights again.
Led Zeppelin. The first 4 albums are without peer. I cannot think of another band since which equalled their technical competence coupled with richness of sound. Some would say U2 but they are less than a shadow of Zeppelin.
The Who. This bands originality and electric stage presence plus musical legacy speaks for itself. I’ll agree that their inspiration peaked at Whos Next and Quadraphenia but that’s saying a helleva lot.
tl;dr. Listen, your childish OP brought this on, and now, strangely enough, you’re burning text trying to reframe your position. You’re inefficient.
There are bits of ideas about music tossed about within your spin. Please consider picking off one or two of those and starting over in new threads. You did that with the Punk question in Cafe Society. How about a nice, warm discussion about Stevie Ray on guitar? 
I’d be interested in hearing you make your case, but in a simple enough thread that it doesn’t skitter off the rails.
Aha, you mentioned the magic two words (Sonic Youth) that identifies you as a tone-deaf anarchistic moron who would say Shakespeare is shitty because it uses fancy old fashioned words. Sonic Youth are horrible by any standard. Just because people have feelings and interesting thoughts does not translate into them creating meaningful music. You gripe about the likes of Hendrix,etc, yet you tolerate the needless dissonance and distortion of crap like Sonic Youth? Not that you care, but you are dead to me. Musicians need some technique, hell, even the Sex Pistols (who FWIW I like) had basic chops.
And by the way, the crap you like was chosen and pushed to your radio stations by the same bunch of suits that pushed out our music on us. Your argument is “this is the stuff I grew up with and it’s better than yours”. Ooofah!
Not bad at all… worthy of further investigation.
Gaaaah!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Goddamn, that is an ugly, ugly set of mugs.
Its all kind of relative don’t you think?
I am hard pressed to find any modern music that is more meaningful than folk music during the cultural revolution and hip hop more recently.
If you want interesting music, then 99% of musicians are going to be one hit wonders if they have any music that meets that criteria at all.
It’s pretty difficult since they don’t sound anything LIKE punk, I’ve never heard anyone seriously try to define punk as who you hang out with before.
Same here. I think I really should like it, considering everything else I like, and every couple of years or so I give it another go but something just doesn’t connect with me.
THAT’S your example of “good” music? Irritating repetitive guitar riff, disco level drum beat (as a drummer friend of mine calls the “pom pom pom BOOM”), and a singer who sounds like the offspring of Weird Al Yankovic and Tom Petty.
Oh yeah, that’s SO much better than Ozzie.
It is, but just because solo Ozzie sucks so hard.
Lead singer sounds like Robert Plant.
Full circle, and all.
Anybody who listens to anything other than Gregorian chants sucks and doesn’t really know what music is all about.
I listen to nothing but Gregorian chants. When anybody else talks about their music I make sure that I tell them that their music is overrated and doesn’t need to be played anymore.
I just bang two rocks together. It’s terribly authentic.
Meh. I like the early stuff, but the later rock-banging was just derivative and bad.
I liked it better when people just banged their heads together–no rocks required.
Snob. There’s always some filthy deconstructionist in every crowd. :rolleyes:
So - at the beginning was headbanging? Sounds about right. Let’s watch a couple of masters in action.