 |
|
 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nick-ola
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 9219
Location: Southampton/Nottingham, UK
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ClashWho wrote: | | If you think The Who is greater than Led Zeppelin in general, then I'm satisfied, because that's my #1 issue. |
 That really should be your epitaph. Or on a brighter note, business card.
Hey, Clash, out of interest how do you see the Who v The Stones in terms of the greatest artist list, because it seems clear that The Who have a strong win in influence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
zeppelin isn't the best
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 23320
Location: Secret beach
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nick-ola wrote: | | Hey, Clash, out of interest how do you see the Who v The Stones in terms of the greatest artist list, because it seems clear that The Who have a strong win in influence. |
I think The Who should be right behind the Rolling Stones, with Chuck Berry right above both of them.
Who vs. Rolling Stones
Influence - An obvious Who victory.
Popularity - An obvious Rolling Stones victory. Whether it's success on the albums chart, the singles chart or the touring circuit, the Rolling Stones dominate The Who. The Who amazingly reached a parity with the Rolling Stones in album and touring success in the seventies and early eighties, but The Who quit while the Rolling Stones kept on rolling. They're a juggernaut.
Musical Impact - Slight Stones edge.
Cultural Impact - Slight Who edge.
It's a very close one, which is why I think they should be right next to each other on the list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Man
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 1109
Location: Somewhere out there...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ^^Although I'm still not very good at judging cultural impact, I would think that The Stones would take that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick-ola
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 9219
Location: Southampton/Nottingham, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can you break down the musical impact and cultural impact parts for me, Clash? I'd have assumed that you'd have had them the reverse and I think, perhaps simplistically, I imagine that cultural impact would follow on from popularity in favour of the Stones.
Also, Chuck Berry over both? I'm assuming Berry slays the Stones in influence, which is levelled up by the Stones comfortably winning in popularity. How do you explain Berry over both. And what spots are you having them at? 4,5,6 or 5,6,7? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zeppelin isn't the best
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 23320
Location: Secret beach
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Man wrote: | | ^^Although I'm still not very good at judging cultural impact, I would think that The Stones would take that. |
Maybe they do. I'm trying to remove cultural impact from mere popularity, but if we're simply talking about celebrity, then the Rolling Stones win. My reasoning is that the Rolling Stones don't have anything comparable to The Who's involvement with a cultural movement such as the Mod movement, haven't added anything to the iconography of rock on a par with the guitar smash or windmill strum, and haven't contributed anything with the cross-cultural breadth of Tommy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zeppelin isn't the best
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 23320
Location: Secret beach
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nick-ola wrote: | | Can you break down the musical impact and cultural impact parts for me, Clash? I'd have assumed that you'd have had them the reverse and I think, perhaps simplistically, I imagine that cultural impact would follow on from popularity in favour of the Stones. |
I almost did have them switched. I elaborated on cultural impact in response to The Man. As for musical impact, The Who's is obviously enormous, but it's tough to top the impact of "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" and their other sixties singles, plus their album run from Beggars Banquet to Exile on Mainstreet. The Who come very close with "My Generation" and their other sixties singles, plus their own album run from The Who Sell Out to Quadrophenia. I think it's the Stones by a whisker. Throw live musical impact into the mix, though, and perhaps you're right that I ought to give The Who the win.
| Nick-ola wrote: | | Also, Chuck Berry over both? I'm assuming Berry slays the Stones in influence, which is levelled up by the Stones comfortably winning in popularity. |
I feel like fifties artists ought to get a bit of a handicap in popularity. Chuck Berry is such a household name that it seems like his documented record sales just don't tell the whole story. Also, yes, he tours at a very modest level, while the Rolling Stones and The Who have filled the largest venues on the planet. Chuck Berry's musical impact is excellent. He's as revered as a rock artist can possibly be, even more than The Who and the Rolling Stones, I think. For cultural impact, the guy defined rock 'n' roll guitar. The guy IS rock 'n' roll guitar. I guess one could say that that isn't precisely cultural impact, but it feels like it is, to me. It's possible he had a hand in breaking down the racial barriers in the USA, as well.
| Nick-ola wrote: | | How do you explain Berry over both. |
With my popularity handicap, I give Chuck Berry the win over the Rolling Stones and The Who in influence, musical impact and cultural impact. Chuck Berry is over The Who on the current list, and I think the reasons for that are the same reasons for him to be over the Rolling Stones.
| Nick-ola wrote: | | And what spots are you having them at? 4,5,6 or 5,6,7? |
1. Elvis Presley
2. The Beatles
3. James Brown
4. Bob Dylan
5. Chuck Berry
6. The Rolling Stones
7. The Who |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreww
Moderator
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Posts: 1062
Location: missourian abroad (alabama and it's as bad as you think)
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ClashWho wrote: | | Nick-ola wrote: | | And what spots are you having them at? 4,5,6 or 5,6,7? |
1. Elvis Presley
2. The Beatles
3. James Brown
4. Bob Dylan
5. Chuck Berry
6. The Rolling Stones
7. The Who |
This is about the way I see it as well. Where do you see The Beach Boys? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick-ola
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 9219
Location: Southampton/Nottingham, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm a little hazy on how we're judging musical impact...if it's musical achievements, then I can't see how Berry rules the roost over the Stones or The Who - they have a list of critically acclaimed, popular singles and albums as long as my arm and from how i can tell, lengthier than Chuck's. Obviously he came to prominence in the 50s when the emphasis was on singles and not albums, but the same could be said of Elvis, and yet he went on to release landmark albums much after his initial wave of musical success. Equally, although I'm by no means as familiar with Chuck as I am with The Who or The Stones, I see him as something of a 1 trick pony. A heck of a trick, but just the one nonetheless. The Who and The Stones, especially the former i suppose, had distinct periods in their career, where they developed and added to their sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zeppelin isn't the best
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 23320
Location: Secret beach
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nick-ola wrote: | | I'm a little hazy on how we're judging musical impact...if it's musical achievements, then I can't see how Berry rules the roost over the Stones or The Who - they have a list of critically acclaimed, popular singles and albums as long as my arm and from how i can tell, lengthier than Chuck's. Obviously he came to prominence in the 50s when the emphasis was on singles and not albums, but the same could be said of Elvis, and yet he went on to release landmark albums much after his initial wave of musical success. Equally, although I'm by no means as familiar with Chuck as I am with The Who or The Stones, I see him as something of a 1 trick pony. A heck of a trick, but just the one nonetheless. The Who and The Stones, especially the former i suppose, had distinct periods in their career, where they developed and added to their sound. |
Well, that's true, and The Who and the Rolling Stones are arguably superior artists to Chuck Berry and certainly much more prolific. If musical impact were simply a list of musical achievements, then The Who and the Rolling Stones would certainly beat Chuck Berry in musical impact. But musical impact is defined as impact on your fellow rock artists. Sounds like it's the same thing as influence, but it's more about one artist's admiration and respect for another, rather than an actual impact on the way an artist creates music. Obviously, The Who, the Rolling Stones and Chuck Berry are all about as revered within rock circles as you can possibly get. But I think that Chuck Berry, simply because he's such an important part of the very foundation of Rock 'n' Roll, has the edge on them. There are few accolades as potent as someone of the stature of John Lennon saying, "If you tried to give Rock 'n' Roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry." Bruce Springsteen has called Chuck Berry the poet laureate of Rock 'n' Roll. His lyrics are widely praised. Many have said he's the true King of Rock 'n' Roll.
Last edited by zeppelin isn't the best on Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zeppelin isn't the best
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 23320
Location: Secret beach
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dreww wrote: | | ClashWho wrote: | | Nick-ola wrote: | | And what spots are you having them at? 4,5,6 or 5,6,7? |
1. Elvis Presley
2. The Beatles
3. James Brown
4. Bob Dylan
5. Chuck Berry
6. The Rolling Stones
7. The Who |
This is about the way I see it as well. Where do you see The Beach Boys? |
I think they're battling with Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles for eighth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick-ola
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 9219
Location: Southampton/Nottingham, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ClashWho wrote: | | Well, that's true, and The Who and the Rolling Stones are arguably superior artists to Chuck Berry and certainly much more prolific. If musical impact were simply a list of musical achievements, then The Who and the Rolling Stones would certainly beat Chuck Berry in musical impact. But musical impact is defined as impact on your fellow rock artists. Sounds like it's the same thing as influence, but it's more about one artists admiration and respect for another, rather than an actual impact on the way an artist creates music. Obviously, The Who, the Rolling Stones and Chuck Berry are all about as revered within rock circles as you can possibly get. But I think that Chuck Berry, simply because he's such an important part of the very foundation of Rock 'n' Roll, has the edge on them. There are few accolades as potent as someone of the stature of John Lennon saying, "If you tried to give Rock 'n' Roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry." Bruce Springsteen has called Chuck Berry the poet laureate of Rock 'n' Roll. His lyrics are widely praised. Many have said he's the true King of Rock 'n' Roll. |
That all sounds like influence to me, to some degree or other. I don't understand why musical impact would be artists admiration and respect for one another. That's so skewed in favour of artists at the very beginning of rock. In any case, I don't see why musical impact isn't simply a overall look at an artists musical achievements. Encompassing critical acclaim, the acclaim of other artists and so on. I don't see how Berry's musical impact, however you slice or dice it is greater than the Stones or The Who. He's the greatest figure in rock guitar, but where do you draw the line and call that influence. Or as you said earlier, he is rock guitar, bracketing that as cultural influence. To all intents and purposes, Berry's musical accomplishments last 4 or 5 years - the Stones and the Who have careers as relevant musical artists of perhaps 3 times that length. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zeppelin isn't the best
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 23320
Location: Secret beach
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can't disagree with you, Nick. I'm just trying to apply the criteria as it currently stands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick-ola
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 9219
Location: Southampton/Nottingham, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Who is currently editing that list? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zeppelin isn't the best
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 23320
Location: Secret beach
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nick-ola wrote: | | Who is currently editing that list? |
Since Chris F. is MIA, I guess no one is.
Lew will probably give it to Sampson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick-ola
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 9219
Location: Southampton/Nottingham, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ClashWho wrote: | | Nick-ola wrote: | | Who is currently editing that list? |
Since Chris F. is MIA, I guess no one is.
Lew will probably give it to Sampson. |
Maybe Brian will take it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
Forums.nutsie.com is a music and movie list website whose owners have given its visitors
the privilege to discuss music and movies, and has no control and cannot in any way be held liable over
how, or by whom this board is used. If you read or see anything inappropriate that has been posted,
contact webmaster@digitaldreamdoor.com. Comments in the forum are reviewed before list updates.
Topics include rock music, metal, rap, hip-hop, blues, jazz, songs, albums, guitar, drums, musicians...
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
