Clint Eastwood Forums

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: GBU on October 11, 2004, 11:43:13 AM

Title: Rock Band
Post by: GBU on October 11, 2004, 11:43:13 AM
Zeppelin. No questions asked.

I know that there quite a few people on this forum that like classic rock, so I want to know what ya'll like.

If you think another band should be on here, please, discuss why.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 11, 2004, 04:43:08 PM
I think you forgot one. (http://home.swfla.rr.com/mattreigns/uhh.gif)

(You don't really need me to tell you who, do you?  :-\ )
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Brendan on October 11, 2004, 05:15:00 PM
I think you forgot one. (http://home.swfla.rr.com/mattreigns/uhh.gif)

(You don't really need me to tell you who, do you?  :-\ )

Let's just assume he means between the ones available.  ;) I agree that tha band your thinking of Matt, is the best.  8)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 11, 2004, 05:37:26 PM
Ugh, I can't believe there's a "Best Rock Band" poll, and KISS, AC/DC and Guns 'n Roses are on it, but not The Beatles.

If GBU thought of The Rolling Stones, how can you not have The Beatles on the list?

That's like having a "Best Western Actor" poll and having John Wayne, but not Clint Eastwood.

Anyway, I'd have to vote for the Stones out of this batch, but I won't vote because the poll is just not worthy of voting in if the undisputed greatest rock band of all time isn't listed.

I'd also have The Kinks on there, but that omission is more understandable.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: GBU on October 11, 2004, 06:30:38 PM
I really don't consider the Beatles a rock band, buts that it just me. If you compare the music to Led, or AC/DC, they just don't sound the same. They are more of a soft rock, not a "rock" rock. I just put the Rolling Stones on there for filler, I couldn't think of another band to put on it. This poll was created on my opinion, sorry for not looking at other choices.

If you want to, delete this poll, and create one suitable of voting on, because I want to know what ya'll like.

I am sorry to say, Matt, that I have never heard of The Kinks.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Brendan on October 11, 2004, 07:33:24 PM
I really don't consider the Beatles a rock band...

Uh-oh...(http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/scared-paranoid2.gif)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 11, 2004, 07:40:49 PM
You're mixing Heavy Metal and Classic Rock.  The Beatles are absolutely a rock band. They are NOT a metal band. AC/DC,  Led Zeppelin, Guns 'n Roses and KISS are all metal bands. Of COURSE The Beatles don't sound like them! The Beatles are a rock band.

Ugh.

Do you like Motley Crue too? Last time someone thought the Beatles weren't a rock band, he thought Motley Crue was the best rock band of all time. I could be sick.

I realize you're only 17, you get a pass. But, if you don't think the Beatles are a rock band, then I heartily suggest you start listening to them before you write them off. Listen to the Kinks too. Classic rock... the best.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 11, 2004, 08:02:22 PM
By the way... what is this, a ballad?

http://www.geocities.com/mattreigns/HelterSkelter.html

(Click link inside...  and anyone who wants to still tell me the Beatles aren't a rock band can go right ahead and try it.)

(The link may go down now and then, if it doesn't work, try back later.)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: GBU on October 11, 2004, 08:46:15 PM
You're mixing Heavy Metal and Classic Rock.  The Beatles are absolutely a rock band. They are NOT a metal band. AC/DC,  Led Zeppelin, Guns 'n Roses and KISS are all metal bands. Of COURSE The Beatles don't sound like them!

First of all AC/DC, Zep, and KISS are NOT heavy metal. Metallica is heavy metal. That is a totally different catagory of music.

Apparently we have different defintions of rock. The Beatles are rock n' roll, like Elvis. Zep, and them are classic rock.

Songs that I consider oldies probably were the popular music back in your day. The Beatles were considered one of the first rock bands. Of course you will still consider them rock. But then rock n' roll evolved into what I consider classic rock, (AC/DC, Zep), so my opinion of rock is going to be differnt than yours.

I do listen to the Beatles. My father has ALL of their records, so I have heard every one of their songs. So don't think that I don't listen to them, just because I see them in a different light than you.


Motley Crue. You think that because I have a different view of rock, that I listen to music that is an abombnation to life? Honestly, that band does not even deserve to be spoken by any human being on this planet.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 11, 2004, 08:49:39 PM
First of all AC/DC, Zep, and KISS are NOT heavy metal. Metallica is heavy metal. That is a totally different catagory of music.

Metallica is heavy metal. You're the first person I've ever heard say that Led Zeppelin isn't a heavy metal band. They're the definitive heavy metal band. And yes, AC/DC and KISS are metal bands too.

The Beatles are NOT rock 'n roll like Elvis. They are rock. Classic rock. Just rock. Comparable to The Stones and The Kinks. Not comparable to AC/DC and the others mentioned.

And I think that anyone who never heard of the Kinks, and is trying to tell me about rock music is a joke. No offense.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: GBU on October 11, 2004, 09:09:03 PM
So you are telling me that Zep and Metallica are in the same category? That is false. Metallica is all metal. Zep is rock and blues. Not even close to metal.  I agree that AC/DC and Guns are a little metal. They have more qualities of classic rock than metal though.

Listen all I am saying is that The Beatles don't fit into the poll I created. I created a poll of "different rock" compared to the Beatles. Maybe two out of the eight are metal, the rest are classic rock. Thats all I'm saying.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 11, 2004, 09:10:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music

Read, and learn.

Anyway... if you had the Stones, then I'd expect the Beatles. They're in the same category.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: GBU on October 12, 2004, 07:06:12 AM
If we go by that definition of rock, than the Beatles are Heavy Metal as well. I quote, from your link,

Quote
Some also cite The Beatles as a key influence; they had increasingly used distortion and heavier arrangements as early as 1967's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Though it says influence, that means that they were like Heavy Metal. We cannot go by that definition.

Ask anyone if Black Sabbath is Metal or Acid. 80%, (yes I took a poll at my school, I asked 25 kids who are fimilar with Sabbath) says Sabbath is more Acid than Metal.

Quote
Anyway... if you had the Stones, then I'd expect the Beatles. They're in the same category.

Read what I said before. I put the Stones in there for filler, I couldn't think of another band to put in it.

I agree with you that the Stones and the Beatles are in the same category.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: GBU on October 12, 2004, 07:38:24 AM
What I am about to do is compare the bands on my list to the definiton in that link.

Quote
Heavy metal is a form of rock music characterized by aggressive, driving rhythms and highly amplified and distorted guitars,

True

Quote
and the themes explored in heavy metal lyrics are often dark or sexually explicit.

False

Quote
Heavy metal is a development of blues music and blues rock and pop. Its first wave, between 1967 and 1974, was a hybrid of pop and blues.

True

Quote
bands such as the Rolling Stones and The Yardbirds had recorded covers of many classic blues songs, sometimes speeding up the tempo and using electric guitar where the original used acoustic. (Similar adaptations of blues and other race music had formed the basis of the earliest rock and roll, notably that of Elvis Presley).

Earlier you said that Elvis and the Beatles are in different catagories. Here they say that Elvis and the Stones were very similar. You said that the Stones and the Beatles were in the same category. Therefore Elvis and the Beatles are in the same category.

Quote
Beatles scholars cite in particular the song "Helter Skelter" from The White Album (1968), which set new standards for distortion and aggressive sound on a pop album.

Again saying that the Beatles influenced heavy metal. Therefore are considered to be partley heavy metal.

Quote
heavy metal being a metaphor for addictive drugs

I guess this means every band, every musician from the mid 60's to the late 70's is heavy metal.

Quote
The fact that Led Zeppelin (whose moniker came partly in reference to Keith Moon's jest that they would "go over like a lead balloon") incorporated a heavy metal into its name may have sealed the usage of the term.

You got me here buddy. Touche.

All I am trying to say is that the Beatles wouldn't not have fit into the list I created. It would be like putting Seline Dion in with Bon Jovi. They technically are both rock, just in different categories. Seline is soft rock, while Bon Jovi is hard rock.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: GBU on October 12, 2004, 02:49:08 PM
I am getting tired of this petty argument over something as dumb as classifying bands. We should get back to being Clint fans instead of bickering rockers. :P
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 12, 2004, 03:18:20 PM
I don't blame you for getting tired of it... you're arguing with someone that you really should be agreeing with. I would say to come back after reading a few books of the history of rock music, and after another decade or so of listening to the music, but by then you wouldn't be debating with me, you'd realize that I'm right on all accounts.  :P

Let me just briefly pick away at more of your arguments before I, too, let this argument go the wayside:

1)  You said since the Beatles influenced heavy metal, that they are a heavy metal band. I think you're simply being argumentative here, since you actually don't even believe the Beatles are a rock band, let alone a heavy metal band. But, to prove the point of how ridiculous your argument here is... consider that Van Halen was influenced by Bach and Mozart... does that, then, make Bach and Mozart rock artists? Think about it.  Some would say that Muhammad Ali influenced rap music... he was certainly not a rap artist though.

2)  " the themes explored in heavy metal lyrics are often dark or sexually explicit."  Do you not understand the word "often", or do you just choose to ignore it? It's not a false statement.

3)  Elvis is a rock 'n roll artist. When the Beatles started out, for the first 18 months or so of their recording career, I could agree that they were a rock 'n roll band. However, with the release of Rubber Soul as early as 1965 the Beatles music matured beyond that of a "rock 'n' roll" band... most people consider this music simply to be called "rock" music. At this point, the Beatles had absolutely nothing in common with Elvis Presley. They had as much in common with Elvis as Celine Dion has with the Beatles (I'm gonna have a good time tearing that point of yours apart soon).   This link attemps to show a pretty good history of "rock 'n roll" and if you scroll down, you'll see a section on the British Invasion (which started the same year the Beatles hit America, in 1964. Elvis is in an era earlier than that, from the "Early North American Rock 'n Roll" era. Saying that Elvis and The Rolling Stones had similar influences does not necessarily put them in the same category... see my above example of Bach and Beethoven with Van Halen). As in the last link I sent you, this is not a "definition" of a term, it's a brief history of music... and very, very accurate. I don't know how you can dispute this unless you have no clue about the history or rock and heavy metal music (and I have a feeling that's more accurate than you want to believe... not knowing Led Zeppelin was a heavy metal band, not considering the Beatles a rock band, and thinking that Beatles are "Elvis-like", never having even heard of The Kinks, one of the foremost pioneers of rock music, and I could go on and on) Anyway, here's the link... read it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll  

4) Yes, the Beatles influenced Heavy Metal. The Beatles influenced every band that came out after them, either directly or indirectly.

5) Celine Dion is NOT a rock artist. Putting her against Bon Jovi in a poll is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT like putting the Beatles, the GREATEST ROCK BAND of all time in the same poll as the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc.

6) Acid rock is a derivative of heavy metal. There are many such subcategories. Heavy metal is a subcategory of rock... but a rock artist does not equal a heavy metal artist.  A heavy metal artist IS a rock artist.  When you said the Beatles didn't sound like Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Guns 'n Roses, KISS, etc, I agreed... but it's not because the Beatles weren't a rock band, it's because the other bands you listed are heavy metal bands.)

It's absolutely ridiculous to not consider the Beatles a rock band. Revolver has been rated year after year after year as the greatest ROCK album of ALL TIME.  Here's one quick link... you can find hundreds more if you want to look:  http://www3.estart.com/arab/entertainment/beatlesrevolver.html

But, you don't consider them a rock band.

Do you realize that with every post you make you prove that you know less and less about rock music? You're burying yourself here, kid. Seriously...  read a few books about rock music, and listen to a lot more of it. Get back to me in a few years.

Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Hemlock on October 12, 2004, 03:39:18 PM
From that list I don`t have any troubles finding my favorite.
The Rolling Stones is the world`s greatest Rock`N`Roll band.
However there are very close seconds as always.Like Led Zeppelin,AC/DC,Aerosmith and so on.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 12, 2004, 03:45:10 PM
From that list I don`t have any troubles finding my favorite.
The Rolling Stones is the world`s greatest Rock`N`Roll band.

They're definitely in the Top 3.  I'd put them 2nd behind only the Beatles (no big surprise, eh ;) ).  Led Zeppelin would maybe come in 3rd for me. Aerosmith, The Kinks and U2 are way up there too.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: GBU on October 12, 2004, 03:56:11 PM
Matt......why couldn't just vote and let it slide instead of these wasted posts. Honestly, this was my opinionated poll, there was no reason to stomp it just because your opinion is different :(. I thought that these were suitable choices for a poll. I didn't think of the Beatles because I didn't want to. Why? My opinion! You have yours. I didn't try to stomp it by saying somthing like, "Beatles? What is your deal man?!". Then we got into this argument that wasn't even about the topic.

Just like in politics, you could be Democratic, I could be Republican, doesen't me we can respect each others opinions, am I right?

I would just like to point out that the title of the poll was "Which is the greatest band?". I don't recall saying "ever" or "in the world". So I was saying who do you like the most in these choices. So next time, think of a poll as an opinion, not a scientifically studied subject.

One more thing before I lock this, when I said my opinion about the Beatles, this was a view from my era. You got to remember, 7 times out of 10 people are not going to even care about this old rock. So of course I am not going to have a wider knowledge of rock, than somebody who lived through it. Thats the facts, Jack.



1) Led Zeppelin
2) Eagles
3) AC/DC
4) Guns N' Roses
5) Aerosmith
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 12, 2004, 04:00:42 PM
Hey, I said you left a band out...  you were the one who said you didn't consider the Beatles a rock band. And you were the one who said the other bands weren't heavy metal bands, and got defensive and argumentative when I corrected you. Sorry, but THEM'S the facts, Jack... not much opinion in any of my posts--just facts backed up with a non-opinionated source. The only opinion I may have given was that the Beatles were the "greatest" rock band of all time, and that "opinion" may even be a fact if you're looking at sales figures and record charts, etc.  Why didn't I "just vote and let it slide"? Last I checked, this was a discussion board, not a polling company.  Besides, you did say in your opening post "If you think another band should be on here, please, discuss why."

I hope you learned something from this discussion. If so, then it was worth it. :)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Doug on October 12, 2004, 08:20:00 PM
The Beatles and then Zed Zeppelin.  After that it varies for me.  

And as a side note, the term "classic rock" is only useful in defining an era that a particular rock band existed  (basically mid sixties through the seventies), and it is not in anyway a classification of the type of music they played.  Black Sabbath and Steely Dan are both classic rock.  Hardly much of a similarity there.  And you will hear plenty of The Beatles on any classic rock station you turn to.  They are a rock band.  Listen for example to the album The Beatles 1962 to 1966, and you can see they are a rock band.  Maybe rock songs have grown longer and louder and raunchier since that time (their own did), but there exists the foundation for all rock music to follow right there on that compilation album.  You then compare that to the "pop" music of that time frame and you will see the difference.  The Beatles had a huge number of #1 singles and they wrote ballads, but at their core (meaning the majority of their music) they were clearly a rock band.   Sgt. Pepper, which is more pop sounding than probably any other record of theirs, had no songs released as singles off of that album.  The White Album technically doesn't either, unless you want to count the completely different version of Revolution that was released as a single.  (The single version being as hard rocking as anything most hard rock bands put out.)  This was an example that Zed Zeppelin and Black Sabbath would follow, putting the emphasis on the whole album rather than singles for mass radio consumption.

Anyway, I just felt like talking.   ;)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 13, 2004, 04:16:00 PM
Great points, Doug.  :)

I've always said the Beatles were an album-oriented band... you can't just listen to the "hits" or compilation albums to get a feel for them as a band. For that reason, I have mixed feelings about the "The Beatles 1" CD. While it did attract a new generation to The Beatles, it doesn't begin to hit on what the band was about... and how awesome they were. I'd much rather for someone who wanted to know about The Beatles to buy Abbey Road, or Revolver, or really any of their studio albums--there's not a single throwaway song on any of them (although I suppose I could live without Revolution 9 if I had to, but I had fun spinning it backwards when I was a kid).  

The White Album technically doesn't either, unless you want to count the completely different version of Revolution that was released as a single.  (The single version being as hard rocking as anything most hard rock bands put out.)  

And just because I love sharing their music, I've uploaded that single version of Revolution to a website for anyone who wants to hear it. As always, the webspace is free, but they only allow a download of a file this size about once an hour, so if it doesn't work, try back soon.)

http://www.geocities.com/agreatsong4u/Revolution.html
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Brendan on October 13, 2004, 10:04:46 PM
Where's The Who?! I just looked again and they aren't even on the list. The Who are one of the greatest rock bands ever!!
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 13, 2004, 11:54:10 PM
Agreed on The Who. The Doors should be there too.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Fr@mus on October 14, 2004, 03:01:37 AM
Agreed on The Who. The Doors should be there too.

Yes, I think so too
And where 's CCR?
In my opinion and remembering my teen years, Led Zep was Hard Rock, si, if you have Zep in the list, we should add Black Sabbath and Deep Purple, because heavy metal category and name come later
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 14, 2004, 04:41:11 AM
In my opinion and remembering my teen years, Led Zep was Hard Rock, si, if you have Zep in the list, we should add Black Sabbath and Deep Purple, because heavy metal category and name come later

As the article I linked to explains, "heavy metal" actually came out in the late 60's..Led Zeppelin was possibly the first band that was actually categorized as a heavy metal band.

Quote
Heavy metal is a development of blues music and blues rock and pop. Its first wave, between 1967 and 1974, was a hybrid of pop and blues. By approximately 1991 most heavy metal had evolved into other hard rock genres, notably grunge.

The article also includes the two bands you listed, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath, as two of the earliest heavy metal bands.

Quote
The earliest music commonly identified as heavy metal came out of the Birmingham area of the United Kingdom in the late 1960s when bands such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath applied an overtly non-traditional approach to blues standards and created new music often based on blues scales and arrangements.

Quote
The Jeff Beck Group's album Truth (late 1968) was an important and influential hard-rock album released just before Led Zeppelin's first album, leading some (especially British blues fans) to argue that Truth was the first heavy-metal album. However, it was the release of Led Zeppelin in 1969 that brought worldwide notice of the formation of a new genre.

Quote
Regardless of its origin, heavy metal may have been used as a jibe initially but was quickly adopted by its adherents. Other, already-established bands, such as Deep Purple, who had origins in pop or progressive rock, immediately took on the heavy metal mantle, adding distortion and additional amplification in a more aggressive approach.

(all quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music)

I'm not just spouting off from an internet article ... these are just how the bands were classified in all the books I've read, and by radio and television programs, and also what we called the bands in the 70s. The term was definitely around back then and used to describe all these bands.

This list of the best Heavy Metal albums was published in Rolling Stone magazine in 1974:

http://www.superseventies.com/heavymtl.html
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Fr@mus on October 14, 2004, 10:28:22 AM
I agree with you Matt....but term or category heavy Metal come later in time:
Hard Rock is precursor to Heavy metal. It was pioneered in the mid to late 1960s by artist such as Jimi Hendrix and Steppenwolf, with bands such as Led Zeppelin, Cream, Sabbath, Purple and Free developing it further.
Now, since late 1960 these bands become Heavy Metal. I think is a matter of term and wich one come first.
And now, they are classic rock

By the way, there was a mumbled phrase in the 1968 Steppenwolf song, "Born To Be Wild" that went "I like smoke and lightning, heavy metal thunder."

John Kay, the group's founder, lead singer, and songwriter has claimed credit for the phrase (although the song is actually about the motorcycle culture).

Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Gant on October 14, 2004, 12:40:08 PM
Saw a great band in London last week.. The Zutons... anyone heard of em ?  Reminded me a little of the Kinks.... I'm big into The Faces at the moment...
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 14, 2004, 04:27:50 PM
I agree with you Matt....but term or category heavy Metal come later in time:
Hard Rock is precursor to Heavy metal. It was pioneered in the mid to late 1960s by artist such as Jimi Hendrix and Steppenwolf, with bands such as Led Zeppelin, Cream, Sabbath, Purple and Free developing it further.
Now, since late 1960 these bands become Heavy Metal. I think is a matter of term and wich one come first.
And now, they are classic rock

By the way, there was a mumbled phrase in the 1968 Steppenwolf song, "Born To Be Wild" that went "I like smoke and lightning, heavy metal thunder."

John Kay, the group's founder, lead singer, and songwriter has claimed credit for the phrase (although the song is actually about the motorcycle culture).

Yup, I agree with all of the above. And Steppenwolf's "Born to be Wild" is one of my favorite songs of all time.  

I'm still not sure what you mean by "term or category heavy Metal come later in time", since the term was being used from the time of Led Zeppelin's first recordings. But, in any case, we all agree that, as Doug said, all these bands are now in the "classic rock" category because of the era they recorded in (mid 60's to late 70's) not due to what subgenre of rock they performed.

The real point that I was making here, and I think we all can agree, is that although the Beatles don't sound like the other bands on this poll (except for the Rolling Stones) it's not because they weren't a rock band. And they weren't a "soft rock" band either. The reason the Beatles music doesn't sound like most of the other bands on this poll is because most of these bands are heavy metal bands, not simply "rock" bands. Bands like Metallica, KISS, GNR were a different style of metal than bands like Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin because heavy metal has subcategories too.... hair metal, thrash metal, etc., and the sounds and styles changed over the years from these earliest heavy metal bands in the late 60's and early 70's to the metal bands of the 80's and 90's. But they all are in the heavy metal genre, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm getting the feeling that it's somehow insulting to call these bands heavy metal, but it's really not. Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc. were pioneers of a new style of rock music. They should be given that recognition and credit... they were trend-setting bands.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Doug on October 15, 2004, 04:17:30 AM
It can be noted that Jimmy Page has said numerous times he does not consider Led Zeppelin a heavy metal band, but a hard rock band.  But it's just a label anyway, and Page might not be the best one to decide the issue.  I, personally, would not consider them a heavy metal band because they were so much more than that, but for their time they were the loudest, rauchiest band around.  Black Sabbath is more a true heavy metal band, I think, the ultimate heavy metal band.  Led Zeppelin's range was just so great, and extended beyond loud guitars and heavy riffs.  However, Physical Graffitti is as much a heavy metal album as any put out.  I'd put Zed Zeppelin in the same category as Jimi Hendrix, and both showed what hard rock could be and should be, but unfortunately no one since has been able to really showcase hard rock as its own distinct artform.  Now, too often, heavy metal music is basically mindless, and only concerned with the heavy side of music, forgetting that you need balance, you need the light along with the dark.  Aerosmith, at one time, was a pretty awesome band, but they never had the sheer talent of Hendrix or Zeppelin, and at their height never quite achieved the same grandeur.   Guns N' Roses always struck me as a so-so copy of Aerosmith, performing their version of pop-metal.

I think it's worth saying that the label heavy metal has bad connotations and implicitly contains its own restrictions, and that's too bad, because it can limit what a band puts out.  Just think if Led Zeppelin had felt they could only put out heavy sounding music, and had left all their great accoustic and lighter blues songs in some studio vault.  
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 15, 2004, 04:21:55 PM
I think it's the "negative connotations" toward the phrase "Heavy Metal" that have made some of the posters in this thread cringe and swear that Led Zeppelin wasn't a heavy metal band. But, that's just not the case. Led Zeppelin has always been considered a heavy metal band. When I was buying their albums in the 70s, before the second wave of heavy metal in the 1980s, they were considered a heavy metal band. And back in those days, especially because of the disco phase, those of us who were 'headbangers' 'potheads', or whatever you wanted to call us, knew our rock music... we lived for it. We read all the magazines of the day, bought all the music, listened to only the hardest rock stations, and remember... this was well before Metallica or Guns n Roses were even on the radar. Led Zeppelin was THE heavy metal band. They were IT.  And there was absolutely nothing shameful about it.  Now that bands like Poison, Ratt, etc. came out with their new breed of heavy metal, it's all of a sudden a case of "Led Zeppelin wasn't a heavy metal band." Well, they were.  Read any book, any magazine on the history of rock music, and you'll see it's a fact.  I've already posted some great links in this thread, don't know if anyone has bothered reading them. But, there's a history of rock and heavy metal in those threads that reads exactly as I remember it growing up in the 1970s.

I typed in a google search "First heavy metal band" and this link came up:  http://www.rarevinyl.net/heavy_punk.htm

Quote
According to most metal annals, the first outbursts came from the Kinks with 'You Really Got Me' and the Who with 'My Generation' around 1964. As for the first heavy metal artist, that position arguably belongs to Alice Cooper, whose band was founded in 1965 under the name The Spiders (that means the Coop has been at it for 33 years!). However, HEAVY METAL was not to truly flourish until the year of 1967 and Alice Cooper was to become embedded in the collective mind of the world until 1971 with the classic Love It To Death. During 1967, the rock world was still absorbed by the Summer of Love, but it was about to witness one of its most important revolutions; bands like Vanilla Fudge, Iron Butterfly, Steppenwolf, Grand Funk Railroad, Uriah Heep, Black Widow and Atomic Rooster came to being between 1966 and 1970, and struck the world with what Steppenwolf would call in one of its songs 'heavy metal thunder" (the first time the term was ever used; originally used to describe the sound of a motorcycle).

A new type of music, which borrowed heavily from rock and roll, was gaining influence on the youth of those times, which was already getting tired of the stagnant Summer of Love scene. Cream and the Jimi Hendrix Experience were the first bands to give (hard) rock a high commercial profile. Several new bands were spawned by the growing heavy metal explosion, while others like Status Quo hardened their sound; but until 1973 the kings of heavy metal were undoubtedly Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and Black Sabbath. During the mid-Seventies, six new bands were to also walk into the spotlight: the Blue Oyster Cult, Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, Queen, Aerosmith, and Kiss.

If it's still in question, I'll dig out my copy of Rolling Stone Magazines History of Rock Music encyclopedia... but at this point, I think it doesn't matter what proof I come up with... the idea of Led Zeppelin being in the same basic category as some of the defilers of the heavy metal genre is too distasteful to accept.

Anyway, I agree with Doug on what he's saying of Led Zeppelin's music. It's important to realize, though, that this first wave of heavy metal music wasn't mindless, and it wasn't just about screaming guitars and no melodies:

Quote
Heavy metal is a development of blues music and blues rock and pop. Its first wave, between 1967 and 1974, was a hybrid of pop and blues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music

As I said above, there's subcategories of heavy metal that the later metal bands of the 1980's fit into that separates them from the earliest heavy metal bands of the 60s and 70s. But Led Zeppelin was one of the first bands that was considered a heavy metal band.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 15, 2004, 05:55:35 PM
Here's a quote from another site that says it well:

Quote
Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues -- it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) -- into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound.
http://www.mtv.com/bands/az/led_zeppelin/bio.jhtml

What the heck, here's another:

Quote
Led Zeppelin, popular British rock band, which pioneered the development of heavy-metal rock music. The group was started in 1968 by guitarist Jimmy Page, singer Robert Plant, bassist John Paul Jones, and drummer John Bonham. Its first album, Led Zeppelin (1969), introduced a blues-based guitar style much like that of other 1960s rock music, but louder and wilder than any of its predecessors.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579371/Led_Zeppelin.html

And another:

Quote
Which brings us to Led Zeppelin II, a Page-riff-driven, hard rocking album that established Zep as the kings of heavy metal.
http://classicrock.about.com/library/weekly/aatp_ledzeppelincds.htm

Another:

Quote
Led Zep defined stadium rock in the seventies. They invented heavy metal - but were always more than happy to have a pint down the local folk club. One of the most influential bands of the twentieth century.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/profiles/ledzeppelin.shtml

One more:

Quote
Led Zeppelin defined what has become heavy metal and hard rock, earning themselves a place in music history as one of the greatest bands ever. Coming up in Britain at the same time the Bay Area was busting with psychedelia, Led Zeppelin would move to break all boundaries known to traditional rock.
http://www.allperson.com/allperson/legend/0000000081.asp
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Doug on October 16, 2004, 05:06:04 AM
Great quotes and great links, Matt.  I hope you don't think I was debating with you, only pointing out what Page has said in interviews.  And heavy metal music and rock music in general is so different now from what it was thirty-five years ago, it means seeing things now with a different perspective.  (Even for someone like Page, who saw things from the inside out.)  And the heavy blues influence has mostly evolved out of heavy metal music, for the worse.  
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 16, 2004, 06:24:40 AM
It's cool, Doug. :)

It's funny... I really don't care if someone doesn't like The Beatles, or The Stones, or any other of my favorite bands. But it really gets my goat to have bands that actually created and defined rock and heavy metal music being stripped of their accomplishments by saying they weren't a rock band or weren't a heavy metal band because those genres have changed in the ensuing decades. That's not any different from someone saying that Alfred Hitchcock films weren't suspense films because the suspense genre has changed so much that now his films weren't at all suspenseful, so we'll just call them dramas. Okay, maybe that's not exactly true of Hitchcock, but I think you see the correlation here. It would be blasphemous to say that since he was the "master of suspense", and if he didn't create the genre, he certainly took it to the next level.

Anyway, I don't know nearly as much about movies as I do rock music, but I was trying to make some kind of correlation to show why I'm so annoyed by the idea of the Beatles not being a rock band, or that Led Zeppelin wasn't a heavy metal band. You can't change history like that just because new artists take that genre further, or in a different direction, or even flood the genre with inferior product. Instead, you create subgenres for the newer artists' works.  (Besides, I still think the Beatles sound as much like a rock band as any other non-heavy metal rock band... take U2 for instance.)

Anyway, it's all classic rock now. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Doors, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Blind Faith, etc.  All great rock artists.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 16, 2004, 08:38:36 AM
More great music for anyone interested (click on the link inside each of the following links):

Gimme Shelter (http://www.geocities.com/anothergreatsong/GimmeShelter.html)  One of the greatest songs by the Rolling Stones.

Helter Skelter (http://www.geocities.com/agreatsong4u/U2HelterSkelter.html)  Since I compared the sound of U2 to The Beatles, I'm posting U2's live version of "Helter Skelter". I posted a link for the original Beatles version on the first page of this thread. I think the Beatles outrock U2 here, but it's such a great song only Motley Crue could ruin it (and they did).

A Gallon of Gas (http://www.geocities.com/thekinksstillrock/agallonofgas.html) I struggled between posting "You Really Got Me", "All Day and All of the Night", "Lola", "Destroyer" and this song. This may be the lesser known of all these Kinks songs, but I love it. Gant, I put this one up for you, since I remember you saying you'd recently gotten into the Kinks, and didn't know if you'd heard this one yet.

(Usual disclaimer:  These songs are all on different websites, so they shouldn't all be down at the same time, but since Geocities only allows large files of this size to be downloaded about once an hour, if the link you click on doesn't work, try again later.)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Hemlock on October 16, 2004, 01:41:38 PM
I´m quite big fan of Mötley Crüe but I got to agree with you Matt.Sixx,Neil,Lee and Mars did rape the Helter Skelter  :-[

That version sucks.No doubt.

Btw Matt how do you like Aerosmith`s version of Come Together ???

Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 16, 2004, 02:42:41 PM
I´m quite big fan of Mötley Crüe but I got to agree with you Matt.Sixx,Neil,Lee and Mars did rape the Helter Skelter  :-[

That version sucks.No doubt.

I'm actually feeling a little bad over here for beating up on one of your favorite bands, Hemlock. But, you do have me laughing at your opinion of their version of Helter Skelter. ;D

Quote
Btw Matt how do you like Aerosmith`s version of Come Together ???

I've been a fan of Aerosmith almost as long as I've been a Beatles fan. At the tender age of eleven, I went to my first rock concert, and it was Aerosmith. I thought I remembered it as the "Toys in the Attic" tour, but it may have been the "Rocks" tour. In any case, Iron Butterfly opened up, then out came Aerosmith. They played "Sweet Emotion" then "10 Inch Record", and before they could play their third song, some jerk threw a bottle onstage and managed to hit Steven Tyler squarely on the forehead. The band walked off the stage, and Steven said they'd never play in Philadelphia again. That was the end of my first rock concert, and that was the last Philly saw of Aerosmith for probably close to 20 years.

I still loved the band, though, and so I've always liked their version of "Come Together". However... I don't like it nearly as much as the original by The Beatles. Aerosmith's version has a heavier sound, but it doesn't seem to be a more rocking version--it just sounds heavier to me. Plus, John Lennon has one of the greatest voices in rock music (as much as The Beatles are respected, I think his singing voice is pretty underrated.)  Steven Tyler sounds good here, but Lennon, in my opinion, sounds phenomenal. So, all in all, I'd say Aerosmith's is a respectable cover, but doesn't touch the genius of the original.

Anyway, I'm having fun sharing music today, so here are the two versions. I'd like to hear other opinions from anyone who'd care to listen to both.

The Beatles - Come Together (http://www.geocities.com/anothergreatsong/BeatlesComeTogether.html)

Aerosmith -  Come Together (http://www.geocities.com/thekinksstillrock/AerosmithComeTogether.html)

(The usual boring disclaimer...  if the links inside the above links are down, try back again in about an hour... Geocities limits how often huge files like this can be downloaded.)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Christopher on October 16, 2004, 02:56:36 PM
I like both of those versions of "Come Together" too. But I think I heard Aerosmith's version first. I think the song might have been playing when I found out it was originally a Beatles song. My mom said something to me about it.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Hemlock on October 16, 2004, 07:36:15 PM
I also heard Aerosmith`s version of Come Together first and used to think that it was an original Aerosmith song :-[

I was very much into hardrock when I was younger..hell I still am ;D but anyway when I got a bit older I started to listen diffrent kind of music as well.

I was surprised to learn that Beatles had songs like Come Together and Helter Skelter.Those songs really rocks.

Anyway I like both of those Come Together versions but if I´ll have to pick one it would be Aerosmith`s version ;)

By the way I saw Aerosmith when they were on Nine Lives tour.Great show.Much better than Paul MacCartney`s concert last summer which was only pretty good.

Oh and Matt you can say anything you want about the Mötley Crüe.I don`t take these things as personal as I used to do when I was teenager...and I´m pretty sure that Sixx and the boys don`t care either ;D
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 16, 2004, 10:46:43 PM
Yes, I'm sure Mötley Crüe hasn't missed the bit of pocket change they would have gotten from me if I had bought any of their records.  ;D

Who knows... maybe if I had heard Aerosmith's version of "Come Together" first, and really liked it, the Beatles' version of it would have never sounded right, or as good.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Christopher on October 17, 2004, 11:23:52 AM
Actually, one version of "Come Together" that I've heard that doesn't sound right is Michael Jackson's. It might be on his HIStory album, I'm not sure. But of course, usually when I hear other bands or singers doing a Jackson original, it doesn't sound right either.

If I was going to pick an all time favorite rock band, I'd probably have to go with Creedence Clearwater Revival. Speaking of bands covering other songs, CCR's "I Heard it Through the Grapevine" is my favorite version of the song. A lot of that has to do with the fact the song is about 12 minutes long. They were really rocking.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Jed Cooper on October 20, 2004, 08:51:58 PM
To me, The Beatles are the greatest rock band.  They were the most creative, innovative band and continue to be the most influential & successful band of all time.  They're my favorite.  That's not to say I'm not a big fan of Led Zeppelin.  Zep is a great band, too.  Of all the music I've heard and continue to hear over the years, it's The Beatle's music I return to more than any other rock group's.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: little_bill on October 29, 2004, 02:26:44 PM
you can have your beatles and your zeeplins and all that, none of them are a patch on the classics the immotral and hallowed , bach, bethhoven, mozart , strauss and the master: MUDDY WATERS
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Fr@mus on October 29, 2004, 05:16:15 PM
you can have your beatles and your zeeplins and all that, none of them are a patch on the classics the immotral and hallowed , bach, bethhoven, mozart , strauss and the master: MUDDY WATERS

Sorry, but as a musician I think beatles are, and will be inmortal classic.

Just some facts:

The Beatles are the best-selling musical group of all time, estimated by EMI to be over one billion discs and tapes sold worldwide.

The most multi-platinum selling albums for any artist or musical group (13 in the U.S. alone).

The Beatles have had more Number One singles than any other artist or musical group (22 in the U.S., 23 in Australia, 23 in The Netherlands, 22 in Canada, 21 in Norway, 18 in Sweden). Ironically, the Beatles could easily have had even more Number Ones, because they were often competing with their own singles. For example, the Beatles' "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" were released as a "double A"-sided single, which caused sales and airplay to be divided between the two songs instead of being counted collectively. Even so, they reached Number Two with the singles.

The Beatles have had more Number One albums than any other act (19 in the U.S. and 15 in the U.K.).

The Beatles spent the highest number of weeks at Number One in the albums chart (132 in the U.S. and 174 in the U.K.).

The most successful first week of sales for a double album (The Beatles Anthology Volume 1), which sold 855,473 copies in the U.S. from November 21 to November 28, 1995).

In terms of charting positions, Lennon and McCartney are the most successful songwriters in history, with 32 number one singles in the U.S. for McCartney, and 26 for Lennon (23 of which were written together). Lennon was responsible for 29 Number One singles in the U.K., and McCartney was responsible for 28 (25 of which were written together).

During the week of April 4, 1964, The Beatles held the top five positions on the Billboard singles chart. No one had ever done anything like this before, and it is doubtful that the conditions will ever exist for anyone to do it again. The songs were "Can't Buy Me Love", "Twist and Shout", "She Loves You", "I Want to Hold Your Hand", and "Please Please Me".
The next week, April 11, 1964, the Beatles held 14 positions on the Billboard Hot 100. Before the Beatles, the highest number of concurrent singles by one artist on the Hot 100 was nine (by Elvis Presley, December 19, 1956).

The Beatles are the only artist to have back-to-back-to-back number one singles on Billboard's Hot 100. Boyz II Men and Elvis Presley have succeeded themselves on the chart, but the Beatles are the only artist to three-peat.

The Beatles' "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history, appearing in the Guinness Book of Records with over 3000 recorded versions.

The Beatles had the fastest selling single of all time with "I Want To Hold Your Hand". The song sold 250,000 units within three days in the U.S., one million in 2 weeks. (Additionally, it sold 10,000 copies per hour in New York City alone for the first 20 days.)

The Beatles have the fastest selling CD of all time with 1. It sold over 13 million copies in four weeks.

The largest number of advance orders for a single, at 2.1 million copies in the U.S. for "Can't Buy Me Love" (it sold 940,225 copies on its first day of release in the U.S. alone).

Sgt. Pepper`s Lonely Hearts Club Band is the best selling album of all time in the U.K. (over 4.5 million copies sold).

With their performance at Shea Stadium in 1965, The Beatles set new world records for concert attendance (55,600+) and revenue.

The Beatles broke television ratings records in the U.S. with their first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show.
 
On June 12, 1965, the Beatles were awarded the order of Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) by the Queen.

On June 30, 1966, the Beatles became the first musical group to perform at the Nippon Budokan Hall in Tokyo.
They performed five times in three days gathering audiences of about 10,000 per performance.

The Beatles appear five times in the top 100 best-selling singles in the UK. No other group appears more than twice.

*From Wikipedia encyclopedia.

Matt, your turn ;)


Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 29, 2004, 06:04:07 PM

Matt, your turn ;)

You did great without any help from me, Fr@mus!  :)

I think that if anyone wants more proof that the Beatles are "immortal classics", they just have to listen to any of their studio albums. I think the music speaks for itself and the songs stand the test of time.

It's nice to see the Beatles receiving the respect they deserve in this thread.  :)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Christopher on October 29, 2004, 06:57:42 PM
none of them are a patch on the classics the immotral and hallowed , bach, bethhoven, mozart
I really like those fellows too, it's just too bad they're not rock bands. ;)

Funny you would mention Led Zeppelin too. It seems like I read once that they are the second best selling band behind The Beatles. Maybe some of you music experts will know if I remember that right.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 29, 2004, 10:17:56 PM
I found a source that backs up what Christopher asked about above. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, when looking at U.S. album sales, The Beatles are the best selling artists of all time, and Led Zeppelin is second (although according to these figures... there's quite a wide margin between them).

Quote
TOP ARTISTS (total certified album sales) As of 12/20/2001

Certified Units (in Millions)

BEATLES, THE   164.5

LED ZEPPELIN    105.0

.......

.......

ROLLING STONES, THE  53.5  
http://www.neosoul.com/riaa/artists/

I haven't been able to find worldwide sales figures to see if Led Zeppelin would still hold the second spot on the list. As it says on this site:
Quote
Determining U.S. sales is difficult enough. Determining foreign sales is almost impossible, especially in Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim, not to mention the vast amount of bootlegging in many countries. At least we now have Soundscan as a double check on record label's claims concerning U.S. sales. If I ever find a reliable source for worldwide sales, I'll make a web page for that. ... I was planning to compile the random reports I see on worldwide sales, but there's just no reliable consistent source.

I have a real hard time getting my mind around how low the Rolling Stones placed on the list above. If these numbers are correct, you could add all the U.S. album sales of Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones and still not meet the U.S. album sales of the Beatles! (I edited out several artists that placed between Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones. Click the link above to see the full list.)

Some more info from this site... The Beatles have more gold and platinum albums than any other band. The Stones follow right behind them:

http://www.neosoul.com/riaa/faq.html

Something else from the same link:
Quote
The Beatles have the most consecutive #1 albums with 8 scored between 1965 and 1968.
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Doug on October 30, 2004, 05:15:14 AM
I would say those numbers for the Beatles are severely under-reported.  (As a side, from the site you linked to, Matt, where's the sales for Dark Side of the Moon?  It has easily sold over 20 million copies.)  Also The Beatles' 1 album, which has at least sold 18 million copies, is also not listed as one of the top selling albums.  (Yes, I know those numbers are almost three years old, but 1 was released over a year earlier.) And Sgt. Pepper has sold a mere 11 million copies ....  ???  whereas the Dixie Chicks' Wide Open Spaces has sold 12.2 million?  (Somehow I don't see that being true, The Bealtes most well known album outsold by the Dixie Chicks.)  I think it's pretty safe to say, accounting of record sales is far more accurate for recent releases.  And reporting seems to vary by record company.  

But numbers are ultimately meaningless, when it comes to the quality of the music.  
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: little_bill on October 30, 2004, 05:27:39 AM
I would say those numbers for the Beatles are severely under-reported.  (As a side, from the site you linked to, Matt, where's the sales for Dark Side of the Moon?  It has easily sold over 20 million copies.)  Also The Beatles' 1 album, which has at least sold 18 million copies, is also not listed as one of the top selling albums.  (Yes, I know those numbers are almost three years old, but 1 was released over a year earlier.) And Sgt. Pepper has sold a mere 11 million copies ....  ???  whereas the Dixie Chicks' Wide Open Spaces has sold 12.2 million?  (Somehow I don't see that being true, The Bealtes most well known album outsold by the Dixie Chicks.)  I think it's pretty safe to say, accounting of record sales is far more accurate for recent releases.  And reporting seems to vary by record company.  

But numbers are ultimately meaningless, when it comes to the quality of the music.  
hell i'm no lover of the beatles but even i question 11 million, could it be 110 million or something.
anyway doug there's been a lot of controversy over so called chart postion and published sales figures for years so i wouldn't put much faith in them(remeber how pistols god save the queen was beaten to number 1 spot by rod stewart on jubilee week.
the pistols had  a couple of thousands sales units just drop of the green earth
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 30, 2004, 06:01:44 AM
I would say those numbers for the Beatles are severely under-reported.  (As a side, from the site you linked to, Matt, where's the sales for Dark Side of the Moon?  It has easily sold over 20 million copies.)

There's another link from that site for best selling albums:  http://www.neosoul.com/riaa/  I don't keep up with how many copies of albums are sold, or who the greatest selling bands of all time are. I did, however, recognize that some of these numbers looked really questionable... particularly the numbers of albums sold by the Rolling Stones in comparison to the other bands on the list. If anyone can find a better source, I'd like to see it too. From what I could see using an internet search, the RIAA seems to be the authoritative source for compiling these numbers, even though a lot of these numbers seem off.

Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Doug on October 31, 2004, 04:01:43 AM
From what I could see using an internet search, the RIAA seems to be the authoritative source for compiling these numbers, even though a lot of these numbers seem off.

That's all I was saying, too, though I do think that site's list of top selling albums was not inclusive, but otherwise those are the official numbers.  I was just saying the system for tracking those figures is not very good at all.  I remember The White Album was listed as having sold 5 million copies for the longest time, and then one day the RIAA did whatever they do and suddenly the sales are 19 million -- same for Led Zeppelin IV.  (Actually for all the Beatle records and Led Zeppeling records.)  It is clearly evident that the Rolling Stones' sales are also extremely under-reported.  Yet you can be sure every stupid copy of Thriller shipped has been counted.  I don't obsess over these types of numbers either, but since this post peeked my curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing the real numbers.  And if there were a real way of knowing, I'd bet a week's pay that the Beatles sales in the U.S. are at least three times more than that official total.  
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on October 31, 2004, 09:21:23 AM
While on my search for a better source for numbers of rock albums sold, I came across this article:

The 10 best rock bands ever (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595384/)

The article ends with this explanation for the writer's choices:

Quote
While I speak with the thunderous voice of truth, this list of “the 10 best rock bands ever” isn’t a purely arbitrary designation yanked from my nether regions. First, the winners had to be an actual band, which eliminated most of the first wave rock ‘n’ roll greats of the '50s like Elvis and Chuck Berry, who were essentially solo artists with backup bands, other towering figures like Bob Dylan, and vocal groups. The bands had to be within the greater circle of “rock” music and generate most or all of their own material. I took into account musical and cultural influence, popularity over time (staying power), and the “It’s a Wonderful Life” factor: What damage would be done if the band were to be removed from rock history? — the greater the damage, the greater the band. Removal of any of the above 10 would render rock history unrecognizable.

Any guess on who the #1 rock band of all time was?  ;)

Okay, enough with the suspense... here goes:

Quote
1. The Beatles
The Beatles are unquestionably the best and most important band in rock history, as well as the most compelling story. Almost miraculously, they embodied the apex of the form artistically, commercially, culturally and spiritually at just the right time, the tumultuous '60s, when music had the power to literally change the world (or at least to give the impression that it could, which may be the same thing). The Beatles are the archetype: there is no term in the language analogous to “Beatlemania.”

Getting back on the topic of album sales... the article says of Led Zeppelin:

Quote
Over a 10-year, nine-album career from 1969-79, Led Zeppelin was the most popular rock group in the world, ultimately selling more than 50 million records in the U.S. alone (more than 200 million worldwide),

Which, of course, doesn't jibe with the RIAA numbers which recorded more than double these numbers. (http://forums.nyyfans.com/images/smilies/dunno.gif)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Doug on November 01, 2004, 04:23:32 AM
I think the guy is using old, out-dated RIAA numbers.  I vaguely seem to recall that being the "official" sales numbers for Zeppelin before the RIAA did an updated accounting (when Led Zeppelin IV went from 4 or 5 million copies sold, or whatever the old total was, to 22 million, the official new total .... ::)).  

Since this thread concerns "rock bands" I have to say I question some of the "rock bands" that this guy includes on his list.  I love Bob Marley, but that seems a stretch on the definition of "rock band."   And then Sly and the Family Stone?  There's an odd choice.  And Led Zeppelin only ranking at #6?   ???  I love U2 and they deserve to be on the list, but not at #3.  

At least he's right on about The Beatles. :)
Title: Re:Rock Band
Post by: Matt on November 01, 2004, 05:18:44 AM

Since this thread concerns "rock bands" I have to say I question some of the "rock bands" that this guy includes on his list.  I love Bob Marley, but that seems a stretch on the definition of "rock band."   And then Sly and the Family Stone?  There's an odd choice.  And Led Zeppelin only ranking at #6?   ???  I love U2 and they deserve to be on the list, but not at #3.  

At least he's right on about The Beatles. :)

I agree with you on questioning why Sly and the Family Stone and Bob Marley appeared on the list. The writer of this article, Eric Olsen, later posted it on a site where readers could post feedback. He responded to the feedback (patiently and politely at first, and then getting a bit more annoyed as it went on). The first time someone questioned Sly and the Family Stone's and Bob Marley's placement on a "rock" list, the author replied:

Quote
RE those complaining about the "rock" category: there will never be agreement on what should or should not fit. I interpreted "rock" fairly broadly. Perhaps the songs should have been called the "Rock Era." I have no problem thinking of Sly and Bob as rock bands.

And here again:

Quote
The Family Stone was as much a rock band as anything else, as their Woodstock performance amply demonstrates; and reggae is directly derived from New Orleans-style rock 'n' roll.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/29/085307.php
Title: Re: Rock Band
Post by: Richard Earl on April 07, 2006, 12:58:08 AM
I just read the posts in this thread and I was throughly entertained. The Beatles by far and by all means is the greatest rock band of all time. To post this questionare without mentioning the Beatles is absolutely ludicrous.
Second of all comparing different genres of rock music really should not be a factor. Rock music is just what it is which is all different kinds of greatness.
I want to make some points about metal in these old bands.
1. The Beatles- Paperback Writer- It is one of the first songs to use distorted feedbacked  guitars in the recorded song. If that song is not metal , I do not know what is. That guitar sound in that song is highly influential to the revolution of the guitar from a backup rhythm sound to "Hey, Listen to what I can do". Yes , the Beatles had their part in defining a harder style of rock.
2. Blue Cheer- Summertime Blues- Another band in the late 60"s to take a classic song at that time and rock the hell out of it. If that is not metal, I do not know what is.
3. Led Zeppelin- Communication Breakdown on their first album. It is extremely heavy & rocking. If that is not heavy metal I do not know what is.
4. Deep Purple- Highway Star, Uriah Heep- Gypsy, Trapeze- Black Cloud and so many more helped define metal.
5. Black Sabbath in my opinion is one of the most influential bands of all time. The purest and most creative form of Heavy metal. Man, in 1970 they came out with these heavy guitar riffed songs with lyrics about Satan looking at you and pointing at you and laughing.Who else was doing that? It was total doom & gloom with songs that made your head move back and forth. And if you ask Ozzy who his main influence was, he says The Beatles.  In other words,it all ties together man.
Let us not forget before The Beatles there was Robert Johnson & Buddy Holly & the Crickets who in my opinion should be on that questionare.
Title: Re: Rock Band
Post by: KC on April 07, 2006, 07:20:19 AM
Now that this thread has been revived ... is anyone for editing the poll to add The Beatles as an option? I don't think we could do that back when the poll was started. You can change your vote now, too.  ;)
Title: Re: Rock Band
Post by: nightwolf05 on April 07, 2006, 12:27:01 PM
I agree The Beatles certainly belong in this poll.
I voted for the Rolling stones.
They have been around keeping their fans rocking and they still are.
So for me I would consider the Rolling stones one of the best rock bands of all time.
I enjoyed the Beatles and they also are one of the best rock banks of all times.
I don't know if it would be fair to limit these bands to only one choice lol.
Adding the Beatles is fair and should be done.
nightwolf05
Title: Re: Rock Band
Post by: Brendan on April 08, 2006, 12:36:31 PM
We can add The Beatles and reset the vote so every band has zero votes. But I think we should leave it up to GBU to make that decision since he did start the poll.  ;)
Title: Re: Rock Band
Post by: Matt on April 08, 2006, 01:44:57 PM
Yeah, I agree. If someone wants to start another poll, they can do that.