|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>I strongly do not agree with the opinion that AC/DC and Van-Halen were "minor blips" in music? They are within the top twenty most famous bands of all time.<
Ian...do you honestly believe that, or are you just pulling my leg?
>They have had countless hits and countless number one ablums<
Oh it's quite easy to count them. I used the US Billboard charts.
Van Halen had 4 #1 albums...all with Hagar. They had exactly one #1 song...Jump. They had 2 others in the top 10...Why Can't This Be Love(#3), and Black n Blue(#5). No other songs in the top 10, 2 charted at #13, 1 at #18...that's it for top 20 songs.
AC/DC has never has a song in the US top 20. They have had only one album go to #1 in the US...For Those About To Rock. Back In Black went to #1 in the UK, but only #6 in the US.
>AC/DC's Back in Black is easily one of the biggest selling albums of all time.<
Yeah, it sold a shitload. Heck, I even have a copy. However, it has been outsold by such artists as...Alannis Morrisette, Sting, N'Sync, Whitney Houston, Peter Frampton, Pink Floyd(twice), Eminem, Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Bing Crosby, and the Bee Gees....not to mention REAL iconic artists such as The Beatles(several albums), Elvis(several times), and Frank Sinatra.
>Each band has had roughly a 20 year stretch as one of the more popular groups of their day <
That is a bit of an overstatement. Each band has had a couple of good years during their careers...Van Halen more so than AC/DC, at least in the US.
>1.Yes, they have little influence on any of today's music.
2. Yes, not many youngins are familiar with exactly who they are, and what they consisted of, or produced musically.
3. No. They are not the most creative or original of groups (although Van-Halen and AC/DC were not as un original as one may over-look). And many may think they are over-rated, dated, or down right stink.<
Not exactly stuff that makes icon status, as you claim. In fact, given the above numbers, combined with the above statements, that spells...minor blip, a footnote in modern music. I'm not saying this to be mean, or to denegrate either band. But reality is what it is. AC/DC is more popular outside of the US, but Van Halen's popularity is almost all in the US. And when you put them in historical perspective they pale when compared to REAL iconic figures.
AC/DC was really popular 24 years ago. That was their peak. It's been about 10 years since VH was really popular. In other words, both bands were popular before a 25 year old would be out buying CDs.
Perhaps these bands are iconic to you personally, and that's cool...but they are not icons in the context of music history. At least not in this dimension of time and space. |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
quote:
Oh it's quite easy to count them. I used the US Billboard charts.
Van Halen had 4 #1 albums...all with Hagar. They had exactly one #1 song...Jump. They had 2 others in the top 10...Why Can't This Be Love(#3), and Black n Blue(#5). No other songs in the top 10, 2 charted at #13, 1 at #18...that's it for top 20 songs.
if I'm not mistaken(and I could be, but I'm pretty sure I didn't just pull this out of my ass), I think Van Halen had 11 #1 hits on the Rock chart. I mean, I know there's a difference, but lets face it, that's what happens when rock bands have to co exist in a music industry with people like Toby Keith. you can't take away too much credit because something completely different just happened to come along at the same time, especially since Van Halen's not excatly the type of band who's always leeching off whatever the current flavor of the week is
quote:
However, it has been outsold by such artists as...Alannis Morrisette, Sting, N'Sync, Whitney Houston, Peter Frampton, Pink Floyd(twice), Eminem, Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Bing Crosby, and the Bee Gees....not to mention REAL iconic artists such as The Beatles(several albums), Elvis(several times), and Frank Sinatra.
I'm a little confused over your definition of 'iconic'. maybe their not as high up there as the 3 you named, but that's keeping the bar a little high, isn't it? the Doors and Ramones were icons in their own right but I wouldn't place THEM next to the Beatles anyday either. maybe you should name one or two more, oh wait, you did: Pink Floyd. love em or hate em their probably just as if not more popular with the youngin's nowadays |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Sir Stonesalot,
The numbers you showed me were not nearly as high as I expected. I truely do appreciate you looking into it.
Yes as far as top ten actually goes the numbers are nothing huge. However take a look at some of the Stones most well known numbers.
You Can't Always Get What You Want is one of the best known classics of all time. I don't think it was a top-tener.
Same with Sympathy For The Devil and Gimme Shelter.
Same is true with Van Halen and AC/DC. Each has a good 5 songs each the average music fan should know off the bat and about 8 or 10 more that everyone who was around in that time listening to music heard and remembers clearly as being a main stay song at that time.
Here are some of the examples:
VH- Runnin With the Devil, Jamie's Cryin, Why Can't This Be Love, Higher and Higher, Jump, Pound Cake, Can't Stop Lovin You, Standing on Top of the World, Dreams, Panama, Hot For The Teacher, Finish what You Started, Dance The Night away etc. etc.
AC/DC- Shook Me all Night Long, Thunderstruck, Hells Bells,
Back N Black, Dirty Deeds, For Those About to Rock,
Big Balls, She's got The Jack, TNT, Highway to Hell,
Rock N roll Aint Noise Pollution etc. etc.
Now I can pick 4 or 5 songs out of each that are notorious.
I do not really love either of these bands. At one time I loved Van-Halen. From 91-96. I liked AC/DC ok and that was about it.
I am not pulling your leg when I say that this may very well be the most famous bands of all time as far as popularity goes and over-all fame. I truly believe, while they are not so influential, or even to be taken seriously any more that Van Halen and Ac/Dc without a doubt have a place within the top 12.
1. Beatles (just popularity, Notoriety, and looked upon not my vote for greatness or the best, you know who that is...)
2. *Stones
3. The Who
4. Led Zepplin
5. The Doors
6. Kiss
7. U2
8. Pink Floyd
9. CCR
10. Greatful Dead
11. AC/DC
12. Van Halen
13. Aerosmith
These, I believe are the top most infamous bands of all time.
Sure, KISS are Silly, so are Aerosmith now. But I am saying Infamous and renound throuout music not necessarily the most influential, talented, or to be taken seriously.
Now I can't understand why a young kid who claims to be all about music not know who some of the most infamous bands of all time were?
I still think it is ignorance.
Ian |
|
|
| beer |
Fair Warning rocks!!! |
|
|
| scratched |
quote:
ResidentMule wrote:
"It's not as if their music will transcend time and generations like, say, the Beatles, Stones and Dylan do. They will be footnotes in musical history."
that statement sounds like your making the mistake of thinking music began in the 1960's
Nope, merely a coincidence. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>1. Beatles (just popularity, Notoriety, and looked upon not my vote for greatness or the best, you know who that is...)
2. *Stones
3. The Who
4. Led Zepplin
5. The Doors
6. Kiss
7. U2
8. Pink Floyd
9. CCR
10. Greatful Dead
11. AC/DC
12. Van Halen
13. Aerosmith<
WTF is that? All that takes in is the hard rock genre! Not only THAT, but it's based on YOUR opinion! You mean to tell me that this whole time, you were only talking about hard rock bands? You just dismiss multi-generational million sellers like Madonna, Elvis, Sinatra, Elton John, Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Bowie, Queen, et al? All of the sudden this discussion is just about a single narrow genre of music?
That is fucked up dude.
It's simple. Condemning an entire generation because they don't have the same narrow focus as you is every bit as ignorant, close minded, and absurd as you claim they are.
|
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
There's probably no generation that has a corner on bad taste. In fact "generationally" speaking recorded music has only existed for a few generations out of hundreds of generations. Let's rock and let the historians sort it out in another 1000 years. LOL. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I am not pulling your leg when I say that this may very well be the most famous bands of all time as far as popularity goes and over-all fame. I truly believe, while they are not so influential, or even to be taken seriously any more that Van Halen and Ac/Dc without a doubt have a place within the top 12.
1. Beatles (just popularity, Notoriety, and looked upon not my vote for greatness or the best, you know who that is...)
2. *Stones
3. The Who
4. Led Zepplin
5. The Doors
6. Kiss
7. U2
8. Pink Floyd
9. CCR
10. Greatful Dead
11. AC/DC
12. Van Halen
13. Aerosmith
ok, since youre obviously talking about bands, I notice, like Sirstonesalot points out, that youre pretty limited in your choices when it comes to genre.
Not only that but pretty limited when it coms to colour.
Seems like your world view consists of acts who would basically appeal to white Americans who only listen to AOR or oldies stations.
If you think bands like Bob Marley & The Wailers, NWA, Public Enemy and even The Jackson bloody Five dont belong in that list as bands who have been extremely popular and/or had some kind of impact (and more so than about half of the acts youve mentioned), then you're seriously deluded.
To think that Kiss or Van Halen have had more of an impact in music history than Public Enemy for example is bloody ludicrous.
Oh,and regarding successful bands - I think you'll find the Bee Gees had more success, impact and longevity than almost all of them.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>1. Beatles (just popularity, Notoriety, and looked upon not my vote for greatness or the best, you know who that is...)
2. *Stones
3. The Who
4. Led Zepplin
5. The Doors
6. Kiss
7. U2
8. Pink Floyd
9. CCR
10. Greatful Dead
11. AC/DC
12. Van Halen
13. Aerosmith<
WTF is that? All that takes in is the hard rock genre! Not only THAT, but it's based on YOUR opinion! You mean to tell me that this whole time, you were only talking about hard rock bands? You just dismiss multi-generational million sellers like Madonna, Elvis, Sinatra, Elton John, Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Bowie, Queen, et al? All of the sudden this discussion is just about a single narrow genre of music?
That is fucked up dude.
It's simple. Condemning an entire generation because they don't have the same narrow focus as you is every bit as ignorant, close minded, and absurd as you claim they are.
Sir Stones Alot,
Slow down a little. I was strictly speaking of Bands/Groups and never once mentioned solo artists. Elvis would take the cake in this whole discussion if you look at it that way.
If you notice on my earlier posts all I was speaking of were music groups.
If you rate popularity, and all around notoriety, how on earth would I forget Elvis? Let alone Maddona or Elton John,
No the discussion wasn't just on Hard Rock Genere -[Besides when did The Beatles, U2, Creedance, and The Grateful Dead become Hard Rock?]-
It was based on Bands/Groups period (of all music types). Not solo artists. By the way you are right I may of forgot Queen in the list.
Ian |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]Gazza wrote:
>I am not pulling your leg when I say that this may very well be the most famous bands of all time as far as popularity goes and over-all fame. I truly believe, while they are not so influential, or even to be taken seriously any more that Van Halen and Ac/Dc without a doubt have a place within the top 12.
1. Beatles (just popularity, Notoriety, and looked upon not my vote for greatness or the best, you know who that is...)
2. *Stones
3. The Who
4. Led Zepplin
5. The Doors
6. Kiss
7. U2
8. Pink Floyd
9. CCR
10. Greatful Dead
11. AC/DC
12. Van Halen
13. Aerosmith
ok, since youre obviously talking about bands, I notice, like Sirstonesalot points out, that youre pretty limited in your choices when it comes to genre.
Not only that but pretty limited when it coms to colour.
Seems like your world view consists of acts who would basically appeal to white Americans who only listen to AOR or oldies stations.
If you think bands like Bob Marley & The Wailers, NWA, Public Enemy and even The Jackson bloody Five dont belong in that list as bands who have been extremely popular and/or had some kind of impact (and more so than about half of the acts youve mentioned), then you're seriously deluded.
To think that Kiss or Van Halen have had more of an impact in music history than Public Enemy for example is bloody ludicrous.
Oh,and regarding successful bands - I think you'll find the Bee Gees had more success, impact and longevity than almost all of them.
[Edited by Gazza]
Thanks now you understand about me speaking of bands....bands that is of any genere. Yes you are right. I over-looked Mo-Town. The Jackson 5 doesn't count because they were like three steps behing The Bee-Gees in terms of popularity. Ok maybe two? But still their songs didn't really last. I really dig old Prince Otis, and Marvin Gay.
I hope it didn't seem as if I over-looked the African american genere because I definatley did not. Most of their influential/Popular stuff comes from their solo artists....Like BB King, Chubby, Louie Armstrong, R. Johnson, Otis, Prince etc. etc.
Public Enemy may influence Gazza, but they are leagues behing AC/DC and Van Halen in terms of popularity and notoriety. They were never a house-hold name. Not even close. AC/DC and Van-Halen were both house-hold names for many years.
Ian |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
Public Enemy?
bloody ludicris?
really?
i give them some credit, they inspired the Peppers and Rage Against the Machine, but I think you were A LOT more on target with Bob Marley and the Jacksons
"All of the sudden this discussion is just about a single narrow genre of music?
That is fucked up dude.
It's simple. Condemning an entire generation because they don't have the same narrow focus as you is every bit as ignorant, close minded, and absurd as you claim they are."
when SS brings in the "that is fucked up dude" card he's either fucking with you, or taking an extra step to steer the discussion back in his direction. pat yourself on the back Ian
however, I like his list better than yours |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Public Enemy may influence Gazza, but they are leagues behing AC/DC and Van Halen in terms of popularity and notoriety. They were never a house-hold name. Not even close. AC/DC and Van-Halen were both house-hold names for many years.
maybe in your household or suburb. Public Enemy are probably the most important/significant band of the rap/hip hop era,a form of music which has lasted almost 25 years and - like it or not - will be around still for at least as long. And that type of music sells by the million and has had greater cultural impact in that time than almost any other. If youre going to include solo acts in that list, then Dr Dre would belong in it way above almost everyone youve mentioned - check his sales, his influence plus the fact he makes more money than almost anyone.
Likewise, reggae may not be big or significant in YOUR "household" but Marley wasnt called the first "third world superstar" without good reason.
And to say the Jacksons didnt "last" is nonsense. They were an active band for about 15 years. The main reason they didnt "last" longer was because one of them branched out and had a slightly successful solo career (its been going for about 30 years, all told) |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
And Public Enemy are still relevant as they just released a brilliant new single with Moby called Make Love Fuck War...
Can't say the same for AC/DC nor Van Halen 
[Edited by Angiegirl] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>If you rate popularity, and all around notoriety, how on earth would I forget Elvis? Let alone Maddona or Elton John,<
My point exactly.
It's always been my view that seperating solo artists from bands is a bit silly. I mean, what is the difference? Solo artist or band, the end result is music. Ian said "history of music"....to me that means all artists, all bands. I now understand that he only meant to include bands...but even at that his premise doesn't hold water. Not only did you forget about Queen, my dear Ian, you forgot Fleetwood Mac, Genesis, CSNY, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Yes, The Kinks, Neil & Crazy Horse, Jefferson Airplane(and even the spin offs!), and since you mentioned already that you forgot about Motown, I won't bother going there.
He also claimed that the Jackson 5 were "two steps below" the Bee Gees in popularity. How the hell would he know? He was a friggin' baby when the 5 were the bomb. The Jackson 5 were HUGE. They had their own weekly variety hour on prime time network TV. They were mainstay "very special guests" on all sorts of special programs. Shit, they even had a cartoon hour on saturday mornings! Their faces were plastered on every teen or entertainment magazine. I don't ever remember seeing Van Halen or AC/DC on prime time TV, let alone have their own show. I can understand why he would not realize this about the Jackson 5 though....they were a little before his time. But then again, using his logic, that would make him "close minded, ignorant, and absurd".
|
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Angiegirl wrote:
And Public Enemy are still relevant as they just released a brilliant new single with Moby called Make Love Fuck War...
yeah angie - i've heard that track a couple of times in the last week - i agree, it is "brilliant"
cheers |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
"The Jackson 5 were HUGE. They had their own weekly variety hour on prime time network TV. They were mainstay "very special guests" on all sorts of special programs. Shit, they even had a cartoon hour on saturday mornings! Their faces were plastered on every teen or entertainment magazine. I don't ever remember seeing Van Halen or AC/DC on prime time TV, let alone have their own show."
that's a tough comparison. I'll agree that Van Halen or AC/DC wasn't the phenomenon the Jacksons were by any stretch, but in the late 70's and 80's, and especially in the hard rock genre, you wouldn't see groups on TV like back in the 60's when you'd see the Monkees. not to mention Van Halen wouldn't have too much success getting through to their target audience with a saturday morning cartoon hour
as far as teen/entertainment magazines... let me put it to you this way, how many guitar magazine covers have you seen since the Van Halen tour started?
yeah the Jacksons were bigger overall but in some ways you just can't compare them the same way |
|
|
| IanBillen |
When I mention the Bee-Gee's lasted longer I mean their music has lasted longer in terms of major popularity. They were a bigger band at their height than the Jackson 5 were. The Jackson 5 were very big sure but I don't think they had as much of an impact as the Bee-Gees did on POP music. Also, The Bee-Gees music can still be heard at clubs. The Jackson 5 are not played any more at clubs. If it ever really was. Stayin alive is much more of a recognisable hit than say ABC. At one point The Bee-Gees had 4 top ten singles on the charts at the same time and started a Diso craz. the Jackson 5 never really started a music craze. this is why I feel The Bee-Gees are more recognisable in terms of popularity over-all.
I surely do not feel Public Enemy ever came close to the over-all popularity of Van-Halen or AC/DC. Sure AC/DC and Van-Halen may be dated and not really relevant anymore but that is not my point. My point was notoriety and popularity in terms of what percentage of the genenral population should be familiar with those bands.
AC/DC and Van-Halen were household names for years. You could ask a 55 year old women in 1984 if she has ever heard of Van-Halen or AC/DC and I am sure she would of. Public Enemy is more for the younger crowd specifically and I doubt a large percentage of the 50-55 year-old crowd and up would know who they are as opposed to how many people that age knew who Van-Halen or AC/DC is when they were at the top of their game.
House-hold name implies that you could go into any average house-hold and hear their names commonly. Meaning the kids, parents know who the person of group is.
The kids may know who Public Enemy is in most cases but it would surely be hit and miss with the parents. More so miss than hit.
Which brings us back to the general discussion. I feel that younger kids who claim to be all about music should at least know who Van-Halen and AC/DC are being as how popular and talked about they were for many years. Even in their childhood to a point. How they have no idea who these bands are is beyond me.
Ian |
|
|
| Gazza |
Yeah Ian, whatever you say....
Obviously black people only listen to white rock acts.
That's why you see so many of them at Stones, Van Halen and AC DC concerts these days.
Its only a few white kids, like Eminem, who identify with rap music. That's why it doesnt sell very many units or have much of an influence on musical culture.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Yeah Ian, whatever you say....
Obviously black people only listen to white rock acts.
That's why you see so many of them at Stones, Van Halen and AC DC concerts these days.
Its only a few white kids, like Eminem, who identify with rap music. That's why it doesnt sell very many units or have much of an influence on musical culture.
[Edited by Gazza]
Gazza,
Why the white/black thing again? It has nothing to do with race or creed and everything to do with notoriety and fame.
I also would find it rediculous if a 23 year old would not know who Chuck Berry or Stevie Wonder is. But many would not. Don't you agree?
Ian |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Gazza,
Why the white/black thing again? It has nothing to do with race or creed and everything to do with notoriety and fame.
I dont agree, actually, Ian. Your original list omitted any black artists. Now, I dont live in the US and I presume you do, so maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong in stating that black people, who make up a sizeable proportion of the population of both your country and of the UK, tend to listen mostly to acts from their own ethnic background. There's more a sense of racial or cultural 'identity'. You're basically dismissing rap/hip hop music as something that has had no cultural impact - which maybe it hasnt in the community YOU live in - but thats not borne out by record sales. And people who sell records in millions DO tend to be "famous" to the people who buy them!
>I also would find it rediculous if a 23 year old would not know who Chuck Berry or Stevie Wonder is. But many would not. Don't you agree?
I don't actually, sad to say. We live in an age where what is "current" is everything. I'm 41. When I was growing up, there was no such thing as classic rock stations or MTV. So you grew up being aware not only of the music of that time, but what had gone before in the 50s and 60's as well. I was actually a Chuck Berry and an Elvis fan way before I even liked the Stones.
Nowadays, you can pick and choose what TV or radio channels you want to listen to or watch and remain totally ignorant of styles of music you're not interested in. I do the same. I dont listen to chart radio stations and although I have about 25 music channels at my disposal on satellite TV, I avoid almost all of them because they're uniformly crap and seem to play the same stupid videos in rotation.
Any artist who's career pre-dated the MTV or video era is, almost without exception going to be "lost" on someone in their early 20s because they're simply not exposed to that type of music. Only someone who genuinely has an interest in where music came from or the history of it is going to know anything about those artists.
Rock n roll as we know it basically dates from the mid 50's. When I was about 13 years old, that form of music was about 20 years old at the time. I was very aware of music from that era but before it? Totally ignorant. as far as I was concerned, pop music didnt exist before Bill Haley and Elvis. Kids today are less exposed to "oldies" than they were when I was growing up and Chuck Berry's music is almost 50 years old after all. Thats not even their parents' generation. It's their GRANDparents.
Youd think that , yes, theres certain artists whose work everyone would be familiar with but thats not necessarily the case. I was amazed a few months ago when I read that Britney Spears had said she'd heard of John Lennon OK - but that she didnt know he was in the Beatles as well. When you hear shit like that, you really give up!
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
you guys are really serious about Public Enemy, huh?
well I'm in that youth age group and before this discussion I didn't even know they were still around. sure I'm white and came from a huge high school with only about 8 black kids in it, but I hear a lot more of other people's music in college and I still don't know any people who listen to Public Enemy. my roommate on the other hand listened to rap day in day out, he never played Public Enemy either, but did really dig some Van Halen and Pink Floyd and Stones
I'm just speaking from my own experience, but I assume that's what everybody else is doing tooo (aside from bringing up the VH/DC chart statistics) |
|
|
| Nellcote |
TV Alert...
Los Lonely Boys on Leno in the states 2nite....
|
|
|
| Gazza |
>you guys are really serious about Public Enemy, huh?
well I'm in that youth age group and before this discussion I didn't even know they were still around. sure I'm white and came from a huge high school with only about 8 black kids in it, but I hear a lot more of other people's music in college and I still don't know any people who listen to Public Enemy. my roommate on the other hand listened to rap day in day out, he never played Public Enemy either, but did really dig some Van Halen and Pink Floyd and Stones
I'm just speaking from my own experience, but I assume that's what everybody else is doing too (aside from bringing up the VH/DC chart statistics)
I'm not talking as someone who's a big fan of Public Enemy or even rap music in general. Like a lot of forms of music, I like some of it and much of it is rubbish. However, that style of music has made the biggest cultural impact of any new 'genre' in the last 25 years and that particular group is probably the most influential BAND of that entire style of music in that time. My point was that to omit them - and rap music in general - from any "list" of influential bands in the history of popular music down the years would be a serious oversight. |
|
|
| PolkSalad |
Fear of a Black Planet is the only rap/hip hop cd I own. Oh ok, I've got another PE on vinyl but I only listend to Fear. |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
quote:
Gazza wrote
I'm not talking as someone who's a big fan of Public Enemy or even rap music in general. Like a lot of forms of music, I like some of it and much of it is rubbish. However, that style of music has made the biggest cultural impact of any new 'genre' in the last 25 years and that particular group is probably the most influential BAND of that entire style of music in that time. My point was that to omit them - and rap music in general - from any "list" of influential bands in the history of popular music down the years would be a serious oversight.
I can see picking out a figurehead to represent rap music, that's more than justifiable to your point. I don't see Public Enemy as being the #1, but I definitly agree with you in saying rap music needs a voice |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Now, Ian, if you say the Bee Gees had more of an Impact on pop music than the Jackson 5 then what do you mean by that exactly? If that includes influence it would be wrong. The jackson 5 were a much more artistically potent group. "I Want You Back," "ABC," "Never Can Say Goodbye," "I'll Be There" and "The Love You Save" are much more memorable pop classics in the long run than "Stayin' Alive," "How Deep is Your Love?" "Words," "Islands in the Stream," etc. It may be arguable, but I truly believe it.
If you want to put a list together of the best artists in your own opinion, you'll have to be more specific. If that's your rock list, I sorta disagree but that's up for healthy debate anyways. Now, you can't say best music in history unless you've heard most of its styles. Or even when it comes to 20th century music. I haven't heard too much 20th century show tunes, classical, instrumental and vocal jazz or country. So for me, I can only say best rock, blues (well maybe that needs some more experience) or R&B artists. I'm well aware of the great music of these genres, so I'm well off to say. Just a little advice. |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Gazza Wrote:
I don't actually, sad to say. We live in an age where what is "current" is everything. I'm 41. When I was growing up, there was no such thing as classic rock stations or MTV. So you grew up being aware not only of the music of that time, but what had gone before in the 50s and 60's as well. I was actually a Chuck Berry and an Elvis fan way before I even liked the Stones.
Gazza, that is the very point I have been arguing from the beggining of this thread.
And the part about Britney Spears not knowing what group John Lennon was in? Are you sure she said this? Man oh Man.
Now that is my very point. The chic is a multi-million dollar POP star and she doesn't really know who the Beatles are....???
This is the typical case of the younger generation today. That is my very case and point.
As far as The Bee-Gees go in terms of "Impact". We'll I don't mean influence. Again I mean popularity and notoriety.
It seems they made much more of a splash.
Ian
|
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]