That’s why the Stones on the list is puzzling. I’m not a prog rock fan as a rule, preferring more straightforward pop and rock, but that can’t be the reason here. “I hate that pretentious, overwrought progressive @#$%” doesn’t overlap, it would seem, with a band that in the 70s produced “Brown Sugar,” “Bitch,” “Tumbling Dice,” “Wild Horses,” “Angie,” “Heartbreaker,” “It’s Only Rock and Roll,” “When the Whip Comes Down,” “Shattered,” “Beast of Burden,” et. al.
Consequently, I’m guessing, based on the tone of later posts, that this list is really “The Top 10 Bands he could think of that will make people twitch when the OP pisses all over them.”
Agreed. Whether you liked a particular band or not was really more a function of what you chose to pay attention to. It’s arguable that the Rolling Stones, by this time, were not really doing anything new. 10CC I don’t rate highly at all–I voted for them. All I know from them is their pop hit “Things We Do For Love”–were they even really a rock band?
Billy Joel should be here too. IMO his sound is too “Broadway” to be rock and roll. I’m not sure how he got into the “canon” of classic rock, because back in the day we really didn’t consider him to be in the same genre as the progressive or hard rock bands.
Then again, no reason you should have thought about disco. If you asked anyone at the time what their favorite rock band was, they wouldn’t say “Bee Gees” because they weren’t really considered to be rock and roll. A lot of people liked to go to discos. A lot of people had great times there, and some of them even remember those times. But everyone else cried Disco Sucks!. Particularly on college campuses, disco didn’t do very well among the more avid music fans, who generally liked a solid rock beat, at least, if not the more free-range explorations of prog-rock.
Thirty-five years later, disco is still not my favorite style, but I do have a better appreciation of what it meant, in its context, to those who did like it. The era was a wild party and disco was its sound track–even if the partying occasionally did get excessive in various ways. Moreover, I have a better appreciation now of how hard it is to make good music in any genre, and I have to admire the Bee Gees for their vocal abilities and how well crafted many of their songs are.
Lucky person! The Symphony and Chorus did not make it to Kitchener for that part of the '77 tour, which at first disappointed me, but then these three guys started playing symphonic music (Emerson’s and Palmer’s stuff) just using keyboard, drums and guitar. It was wonderful to listen to music that actually went somewhere. A truly amazing musical experience!
This is so very true. Except for the part about Yes because they were awesome.
This list seems to be expertly designed to piss off people like me. As has been said, punk was innovative for a couple of years or so but then got stuck in a rut which puts all other musical ruts to shame. Not for nothing did so many of the first wave of punk bands release a record or two of what would today be considered ‘punk’ and then move on to a more eclectic and varied sound.
[QUOTE=Nunzio Tavulari]
Rock & roll is the beat. If you want to embark on a deeper exploration of musical structures, become a jazz player.
[/QUOTE]
Again, this sort of reactionary musical attitude baffles me. Do you also think the Beatles were the worst band of the sixties? Rock & roll was just a beat, back when it was a teenage fad that was doomed to stagnate and die out after a few years like so many fads before it. ‘Deeper exploration of musical structures’ was one of the factors that kept it alive and turned it into a lasting artform. And for that matter why does jazz get a pass for that sort of thing? It could be argued that jazz only started with the ‘deeper exploration’ around the same time as rock & roll. In an alternate universe someone’s posting “Jazz is 2-5-1 and a big band. If you want to embark on a deeper exploration of musical structures, become a rock & roll player” and it sounds equally silly there. And none of this comes anywhere near explaining why the Rolling Stones are there, as they arguably remained the standard-bearers for the straight-ahead traditional rock & roll beat long after most groups got bored with it. In short, I do not like your poll, sir.
All that said, my vote is for the Moody Blues. Booo-ring. Prog without the rock.
That last bit is one of the most preposterous statements I’ve ever seen on this board (and I’ve seen a few). What, exactly, makes you the St. Peter of Rock Heaven, with your standards inscribed as Holy Writ upon the Stones above the entrance, denying entry to all who fail your little litmus tests? Rock has always been perfectly capable of “exploring deeper structures” in a variety of idioms, whether you like the idea or not.
While I have a lot of bones to pick with prog myself (their 3rd generation descendants-mid 90’s to date, or thereabouts-almost universally leave me completely cold, with the notable exception of Porcupine Tree, who aren’t really prog to begin with), to insinuate that they aren’t performing “true” rock just because they dare to expand things a bit beyond 4 Chords and the Truth is a pretty far reach.
And putting Rush on there, with the excuse that rock is “all about the beat” is silly too, given who their drummer is and how tight his/their rhythms were. It’s never been “all about the beat”, even going back to the mid 60’s.
Aww, The Moody Blues were swoon-worthy. They were a major part of the soundtrack of my life back in the day. All my female friends and I loved them. The guys who didn’t were belching down cheap beer in smelly dives, listening to REO Speedwagon, wondering why they couldn’t get dates.
It’s interesting to me that some of the very greatest drummers in rock history played in the bands on this silly list. If you peruse a sampling of “Top 100 (or 50, or whatever) Rock Drummers” lists you’ll notice:
Neal Peart (Rush)* is often listed as the best rock drummer ever.
*Carl Palmer (ELP) *and…
Bill Bruford (Yes, King Crimson) are usually among the top 4-7.
Phil Collins (Genesis) generally comes in the top 20-40 (I think he should be ranked much higher but isn’t only because of all the schlocky pop he recorded in the 80’s).
* Nick Mason (Pink Floyd)* is in the top 50 or 60.
Clive Barker (Jethro Tull) is in the 70 to 100 range.
Barriemore Barlow, another drummer for Jethro Tull, wasn’t on any of the lists I saw, but, he was called “The greatest rock drummer England ever produced.” by John Bonham.
Speaking of Bonham, a bunch of posters said that Led Zeppelin should have been on the OP’s list. Maybe so, because* John Bonham* is usually considered among the top 3 rock drummers ever.
And then there are the keyboardists…!
*** Tony Banks** (Genesis)*
Keith Emerson (ELP)
Rick Wakeman (Yes)
Richard Wright (Pink Floyd)
Beyond any shadow of a doubt, all four are not just rock keyboard legends, but in fact, rock keyboard Gods.
Just out of curiosity, where, IYO, does Charlie Watts fit on that list? I am not a musician. Consequently, I have no idea what makes a ‘good’ drummer vs a ‘bad’ one, other than that bad ones don’t keep time well, but I’ve always like Watts’s drumming and I wonder where he fits on lists like this. It is funny that so many bad bands had so many very talented musicians…
I personally would rank Charlie Watts quite highly. I’m not a big Rolling Stones listener, but the guy has a nice steady coolness to his playing. Not the flashiest guy in the world, but has quite a pulse, playing in the pocket. I’d take him over many of the drummers that end up on the top drummers list. One this randomly chosen list, he ranks 91.
Hell, some so-called “good ones” don’t keep time so well, either.