Here's a list of the top 50 songwriters in rock history. As with all lists of this type it's total nonsense, but if you don't take it too seriously it's somewhat interesting. And yes, ABBA is on the list.
Some irrefutable truths about rock and roll
1) Robert Johnson invented rock and roll, and is the rightful King of it. Elvis Presley's title should be amended to "Poster Boy of Early Rock and Roll."
2) Jeff Buckley's version of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" is infinitely better than the Rufus Wainwright version and is the definitive version of the song.
3) The Rolling Stones were and are the most overrated band in the history of rock and roll.
4) If it's too loud you are, indeed, too old.
5) The Stone Roses' self-titled debut is the best debut album ever in the history of ever.
6) John Mayer needs to stop that right now.
7) A good song is a good song, whether it's played on an Audiovox tape deck and a single factory speaker in a 1976 Buick Skylark or a complete Linn Klimax system.
8) A couple of Les Pauls, a Fender Precision bass, and a decent set of drums sound every bit as good as the most disciplined orchestra.
9) There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the occasional urge to crank "Hungry Like the Wolf" from time to time, so long as it doesn't become a habit.
Did I forget anything?
*yes, I realize everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
2) Jeff Buckley's version of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" is infinitely better than the Rufus Wainwright version and is the definitive version of the song.
3) The Rolling Stones were and are the most overrated band in the history of rock and roll.
4) If it's too loud you are, indeed, too old.
5) The Stone Roses' self-titled debut is the best debut album ever in the history of ever.
6) John Mayer needs to stop that right now.
7) A good song is a good song, whether it's played on an Audiovox tape deck and a single factory speaker in a 1976 Buick Skylark or a complete Linn Klimax system.
8) A couple of Les Pauls, a Fender Precision bass, and a decent set of drums sound every bit as good as the most disciplined orchestra.
9) There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the occasional urge to crank "Hungry Like the Wolf" from time to time, so long as it doesn't become a habit.
Did I forget anything?
*yes, I realize everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
181 responses Add your response
Phase - Another lesser known name in that Brit blues-rock genre was Chicken Shack. Stan Webb was a really good lead guitarist and the keyboards were handled by non other than Christine Perfect (AKA McVie), later of Fleetwood Mac. Cerrot - On the surgface, you have a point, but... Even though, as rock n roll bands (per my personal definition, posted above), both come up short in similar ways, I'd argue that ABBA comes up a helluva lot shorter than The Beatles (although they do rock it surprisingly hard on their live take of Gimme, Gimme, Gimme). As pop bands, both could churn out catchy hits with regularity. I believe that ABBA actually sold more records than the Beatles (tho that may have changed since last I looked. OTOH, The Beatles were VASTLY more sophisticated songwriters. And I do mean VASTLY. |
There are many who say ABBA was just as great as the Beatles. They kind of both did the same thing, maybe the beatles on a larger stage. I think the beatles sold more records than ABBA did but, to me, both very similar. Mass produced commercial music assembled for the masses. I prefer to hit 'next' when their music comes up, unless it can possibly be something that hasn't been played in a while. |
| Post removed |
Loomis, I fully understand those who aren't moved by post-Brian Wilson pop/rock and prefer to stay closer to the blues. I also understand why some people lean the other way. As I noted, I can't really spend much time listening to The Beatles, (even tho I do study the song craft), so I definitely get where you're coming from. My Buckingham fixation is definitely a personal quirk, but it works for me. As to sharing my songs, that's a bit of a minefield. I perform once a year for friends at my wifes birthday party. Since I'm in LA , that party has, on occasion, included a few record company types and I've had an overture about putting one song on iTunes. That represents a level of personal exposure that I'm not quite ready for. So far, I've resisted - but I'll keep you posted if that changes. |
mkl: 1. i'd very much enjoy hearing your songs if you care to share. 2. i've only recently come around to fully appreciate chuck berry. dylan, elvis costello, or other such verbal freaksofnature excluded, he's probably the world's greatest lyricist--the guy invented his own language, for chrissakes. i never worshipped his guitar playing, but his piano player is really, really, really good, 3. fully concur on the beatles guitaristics. george never sent me; the only truly transcendent guitar work on their records, "i want you, " was, as i understand it, by eric clapton. paul was, by the widest margin imaginable, the best drummer/guitarist/musician in the band, but like most lefties, wasn't a natural lead player. 4. likewise agree on the stones songcraft--they didn't, and probably didn't want to, go beyond the triedandtrue four-chord structure--they were, first and foremost, a live band, which the beatles never were. they also never had a producer as visionary as george martin (who i believe should be as revered as johnpaul). however, within the self-imposed constraints of their chosen genre, i think they're every bit as crafty as the beatles--"no expectations" isn't a lesser work than "yesterday" or "strawberry fields" just because it doesn't aspire to such melodic grandeur. 5. don't hate me just for this, but brain wilson and his many acolytes have always seemed a bit overrated to me; i appreciate the obsessiveness and frequent melodic beauty, but as a rock-and-soul guy tend to respond to it on a more intellectual than visceral level. stated another way, it doesn't rock. 6. which brings me to (brian wilson acolyte) lindsay buckingham and guit-art. he's a manic player; he knows a lot of chords and has fast hands, but at core he doesn't make me weep when he stretches out in the same way as all the solos on "bare trees" or "future games." does he rock? as ever, i very much appreciate your thoughts and insights. |
Loomis, The distinction between our views may be real or it may be more semantic. I use "songcraft" to mean sophistication in a few areas - but, in the end, it's first and foremost (tho not exclusively) a harmonic distinction to me. What I call "true" rock n roll has about zero harmonic sophistication. The chords are rarely inventive and may even add only a single note to the root. There are few to no vocal harmonies. The greatest examples (see "Johnny B Goode) are so simple - backbeat/riff/lead guitar/maybe a throwaway vocal - that they're barely even songs. The lead playing is compelling and doesn't even respect the most basic of rules, moving seamlessly from major key to minor and back. The real joy of the music is in the LEAD guitar backed by the rhythm (let's call it "guit- art"). To me, the absence of harmonic interest is - in one respect - a huge plus. It forces the artist to work with a limited toolbox and, at its best - finds treasure in absolute simplicity. (That's also what I'm driving at when I cite a lack of songcraft.) It also recalls the music of other cultures where tempered scales aren't common and harmony doesn't really work. One of the reasons that I really love that kind of "true" rock n roll is that - like so much controversial 20th century art - it rejects the idea that the historical bedrock values of the art that preceded it (e.g. harmonic sophistication in music) are sacrosanct. Chuck Berry (and Andy Warhol, for that matter) provide a challenge to the status quo that raises their work to the level of serious art (for me), even if many folks here on the 'Gon would disagree with me. Lots of people reacted violently to these artists because they did present a challenge to existing cultural standards. (The book Pirate Radio points out that British cultural authorities were willing to literally kill to keep rock n roll out of England.) Because - That way lies anarchy! The Beatles (by their own admission following closely in the footsteps of Brian Wilson) added tremendous harmonic sophistication to the basic rock n roll formula. They became the standard bearers of the "Disciples of Brian", nearly all of whom also became less "guitar centric". (The lead break on Good Vibrations, for example, is played on electro-theremin.) While there's tons of interesting guitar work in The Beatles' catalog, IMO there's very little in the way of compelling guitar leads. Paul McCartney goes up the neck in tenths on Blackbird - clever guitar playing, no doubt, but IMO closer in spirit to Bach than to Berry. I'd argue that they favored guitar-craft over guitar-art. On the one hand, they provided a new way forward - out of the Berry box, if you will. On the other hand, you could argue that they undermined the whole idea of rock n roll in doing so. The Stones (and most "hard rock" bands) took another route out of the box. Unlike The Beatles or The Beach Boys, they rarely let harmonic ideas become the central point of their art. Chords stay simple, instrumentation stays simple, tonal color stays simple. Mostly, they find variety within the guitar playing. Of course, making a pure, hard distinction would be an overstatement. In reality, it's more of a sliding scale. The Stones offered some songcraft and The Beatles offered some guit-art. But to me, the difference in emphasis is what really separates the two great bands. One way to summarize it: The Stones always tried to stay closer to historically African American roots of the form, while The Beatles moved to a sound that was more traditionally Western. My point about The Stones being well understood and also under appreciated was merely that most folks prefer songcraft to guit-art. I'm not even really calling a favorite here. I write a half dozen songs a year and The Beatles (along with Stephen Sonheim) are BY FAR my biggest influence. However, when it comes to listening, I'll take The Stones 9 times out of 10. As noted, more often, I'll take Lindsey Buckingham because he provides a satisfying measure of each: songcraft, guitarcraft and guit-art. He's clearly a Disciple of Brian, but he's also a wildman with a guitar who preserves the essential anarchical elements of rock n roll in much of his music. To be clear, this read on the issue is purely my own. I don't expect anyone to particularly embrace it. But it is definitely the way I make sense of rock n roll and the question of The Beatles vs The Stones. |
martykl, we agree on many things. peter green is godlike, "then play on" is a stone classic, etc. as for lindsay buckingham, i respect his craftsmanship and he probably is a genius of sorts, although as a guitar player he doesn't grab me on the same visceral level as a green, or danny kirwan or jeremy spencer. purely subjective. as for the stones/beatles we may disagree. clearly, the stones had nowhere near the melodic sophistication of the beatles and worked a much narrower bloozrock idiom, although i always preferred mick/keith as lyricists. as for songcraft, however, i think the stones gave up nothing--beggars banquet or sticky fingers are, in their own more primal way just as crafty as sgt. pepper. again, purely subjective--they were both great |
Well, if we're going to youtube, try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HGs6M9exS4 Just skip ahead to the 4 1/2 minute mark where the guitar solo begins. Some may prefer the wrenching pain of the best blues solos (for example, Peter Green), but IMO this is the sound of pure obsession expressed on a guitar by a player with unnatural rhythmic ability. Beyond the over the top visual display is just a metronomic rhythmic precision. In my book, Peter Green is a hero, but so is Buckingham. |
Late to the thread here, but absolutely agree that a good song is a good song, regardless! Also, that the hardesat thing to do is write the perfect 3-minute pop/rock tune. Anybody can do a self-indulgent Inna Gadda da Vida, but think of what makes Tapestry a great album. All the songs are 3-4 minutes and perfect - not a wasted or extra note. |
BTW, if it wasn't clear from my post above re: The Stones, I pretty much agree with you. The Beatles are prized for their exquisite (at least in the context of rock and pop bands) songcraft, which simply has very little to do with what The Stones are all about. My Buckingham fixation is primarily due to his IMO more or less unique ability to combine Beatle-esque craft with Stones-like primitivism. I find it the best of both worlds, buy - hey - that's just me. |
Peter Green + Danny Kirwan + Jeremy Spencer = guitar heaven. Green will always rate at/near the top of my list of blues rock guitar heroes. That band was short lived. but spectacular, IMHO. The Kirwan/Christine McVie/Bob Welch variations also produced some pretty fantastic records (most notably, to my ear, Mystery To Me). Nevertheless, I'll still take Lindsey Buckingham era Fleetwood Mac - simply because I believe that Buckingham is a God who walks among men. (And a pretty sick twist, to boot.) |
The Stones are misunderstood in the sense that naysayers perceive them as nothing more than a second rate blues band that never had an original idea of their own. There is also the argument of whether Jagger can truly sing. I do know this: Jagger and Stones can truly PERFORM...and 68-72 they were arguably the most consistent band on the planet with four stellar consecutive LPS. As far as Fleetwood Mac, I prefer the Peter Green era. |
I also found the "Rolling Stones most misunderstood" item to be an odd call. I think they're very well understood. The Stones are a rock n roll band that made (a) few concessions to pop. Judging from this thread, I think that The Beatles are more generally misunderstood. IMO. they were a brilliant pop band working in a broad rock n roll idiom (backbeat and riff) that many have anointed the "greatest rock n roll band" ever. I disagree, but that's likely because I have a different (okay, maybe eccentric) view of rock n roll as an art form than most folks. If the thought behind the statement was that The Beatles are overly revered and that The Stones are (as a relative matter) under appreciated, then I won't disagree. However, I don't think that's because the Stones are misunderstood. Notwithstanding the unavoidable semantic elements of the argument (where does rock n roll end and rock inflected pop begin?), I think it's because people generally prefer Beatle-esque pop/rock to Stones style rock n roll. No misunderstanding, just different value judgements. PS - Consistent with my posts over the years, I'd tend to argue that Fleetwood Mac is the most misunderstood band in history. It's completely true that they charted tons of pop songs written and/or sung by one of the two chicks, but that's only half the story. As anyone who has ever seen them live should know, Fleetwood Mac is one bad ass rock n roll band. |
1.Nobody has abused their talent more than Rod Stewart. 2.Bruce Springfield is often mediocre and annoying. 3.Stone Roses Second Coming was one the worst sophomore efforts in history. 4.Ac/dc is the best thing Australia ever exported. 5.*Coldplay is music for bedwetters. 6.Rolling stones are the most misunderstood band in history. 7.U2 are.overdue for a great lp. 8.ReM's first lp is their best. 9.Oasis debut is the best debut of alll time. 10.VH debut is best debut of all time. |
If my memory serves me didn't they broadcast Radio Luxembourg broadcast off the coast of English Channel just outside of the 'British Waters territorial zone' in a boat?. It also sounded like listening to music with your speakers in the bath all swishy noises etc, shame really. How come RL sounded ok to the Mickey Mousers oop norf? |
Get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone |
There is lots of good music always out there. Irrefutable truths require factual data to back them up though, otherwise they are just opinions, to which all are entitled. There can only be one "best" of anything. Best song? I won't even attempt to go there. In the "best rock and roll song that most people never heard of" category, I like "Some People" by Savoy Brown off the classic album "Jack The Toad". |
Seriously though, this whole thing about the Beatles vs anyone else is amusing and boring at the same time. They simply cannot be taken out of the context in which they came from. There was a lot of great music by many great bands during that era. They all fed off of and thrived off of eachother. I cannot dispute that more people seem to relate to and love the Beatles than most other bands. Same with the Stones, I guess. For me personally, both of them are enormously boring. I find the material from the Yardbirds, The Kinks and The Who far more interesting, raw and engaging. Then again, my favorite music was born with 'In the Court of the Crimson King', and then 'Black Sabbath' (bastard children both). So what do I know? I do know that rock is alive and well. Always has been. There is so much good and interesting music out there, from the 50's to today, that it seems a shame to limit it to one particulat sub-genre, let alone one or two bands. |
"Like A Rolling Stone" the greatest ROCK song ever? Personally, I'd be inclined to place it second to "Johnny B Goode". Note: For me, this one is Chuck Berry vs Dylan, no Beatles involved (until someone - Audiofiel? - involves them). Second Note: Please, no "Stairway". I get enough of that on the July 4th countdown radio shows. Marty |
Wow. I always had a hypothesis that any discussion/debate focused on rock and roll would eventually become a discussion about the Beatles. On a completely different note, someone in the "real" world suggested I had forgotten the following truth: 10) Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone" is the greatest song ever written. Hmmmmmmm . . . . . . Thoughts? |
"Rock and Roll" was coined by the late Alan Freed.Freed was a radio disc jockey whom came to NYC from Cleveland in the early 1950's.He used the term Rock and Roll for the upbeat music he spun by artists like Chuck Berry,Bo Diddley,Little Richard Laverne Baker.The slower group harmony sound was called Rhythm and Blues later to be known as Do-wop ie The Harptones,Clovers,5 Keys,Moonglows.It was the first time youth had its own music and not that of its elders.Naturally it was looked upon as being rebellious and a Communist threat. |
Fred evidently has missed the recent revisionist view of Macca's solo work. Lots of young, hip indie rockers seem to cite "Ram" as their touchstone. FWIW. BTW, I liked the answer to this question that was provided some decades back by a rock critic (whose name I long ago forgot): "John without Paul is sour, Paul without John is saccharine." Marty |
"How can the Beatles be so good (I'm not a big Beatles fan, but think they are/were good) and Paul McCartney (as a solo act) be so bad?" I hear Paul still puts on a good live show! Even in their prime, no solo Beatle could be equated with the Beatles as a group. That was a unique synergy that could be emulated but never equaled consistently. However good or bad McCartney is/was as a solo act really has no relevance to what the Beatles were. There are a few McCartney albums that are worth mention that can claim some level of artistry approaching that of the Beatles albums. "Ram", "Band On the Run", "London Town" and "Tug Of War" are the ones I would cite personally though opinions will vary widely regarding the merit of much of McCartney's solo stuff. Can't comment on most of his recent albums though...haven't heard much of them. |
