Greatest Rock Groups in History

Oh, and of course this is obvious to everyone and not even worth mentioning, but just for the sake of completeness...

Most overrated rock group in history? Of course the Beatles. The Beatles were good of you're over 60 and like elevator music. And Ringo Starr was the most overrated drummer on the planet, and somehow got people to put his name in the top 10 list of drummers? Yeah, nobody takes THAT seriously.

And we all know the #2 most overrated rock group is the Stones. Those were rock musicians for white guys with no soul.

And speaking of white guys with no sense whatsoever for the blues, Eric Clapton was, by far, the most overrated blues guitarist. Ever. Played the same riffs over and over and over and over. And they weren't that good in the first place.

Lol jerkison ...the Beatles discography is too good man. They weren't overrated at all. What made them so amazing is that many of their songs were great AND catchy.

What Rock groups have this many albums that are great from start to finish?

Abbey Road
Revolver
Please Please
Sgt Peppers a Lonely <3's Club
Help

"Penny Lane"???

"Strawberry Fields"??

"Yellow Submarine"??

"I am the Walrus"??

Okay, I'll stop there because I don't want to further embarrass you, but like I said, if you're 60 years old and love elevator music, then yes, the Beatles tunes were "catchy".

They don't even belong in contention for anything to do with rock.

COO COO CA FUCKING CHOO !!!!

Could we say they're in different categories?

Beatles were pop before their was pop, led and halen were leaning towards heavy metal before that genre really for it's foothold.

Don't forget Michael Anthony was a great bass player too...

Rolling Stones should be in the discussion but I think they fall into that "pop" category like the Beatles.

I'm going to have to cast my vote for Queen as the best of all times. Best Drummer... Keith Moon. Best Guitarist.... Eddie Vanhalen, Eric Clapton, Slash, Adam Clayton (the Edge).... That's a tough one. Best Rocl vocalist probably Freddie Mercury followed closely by Axl Rose.

All my humble opinion of course v

You have the Beatles and Led Zeppelin first as bands go. No one else is even in the team picture; not even close. The Stones are alone in third, one quantum level below those two.


Then there's a significant gap. You can fight over everyone else, as no one else approaches those top 3. Guns And Roses just don't have enough material, Van Halen has too much terrible material. Honorable mention to AC/DC.

"Best" guitarist is a difficult thing to argue as everyone is good and many are great, and we confuse bands we like with their guitar players. The Stones were great but Richards is more style than talent.

Obviously Hendrix is number one because he didn't have himself, or anyone else for that matter to copy from for modern electric music. He invented the electric guitar style almost in a vacuum! Guys like Van Halen have more technical skills but they had the originators like Hendrix and Blackmore as a template. My personal favorite is Jimmy Page but his strength is in his musical taste more than in the fingers. And of course, I like myself as well! LOL

Most over rated guitarists: Clapton, Slash, Nugent, Stevie Ray Vaughn. All good players but nothing special.

Most under rated guitarists: Blackmore, Rick Neilson, Randy Rhodes. Three innovators that influenced many of the top players who followed.

Hope this helps.

I know music is all about opinion, but how can you guys leave Neal Peart off the best drummer list?

I have also read more than once that Zeppelin just regurgitated old blues riffs note for note. I know practically all music is derivative of what came before (Hendrix excepted as rockstar mentioned) so I try not to overthink it and just enjoy. Full disclosure...absolutely no musical ability other than the ability to press play and I am an old fart who knows what he likes.

Okay, best drummers:

Keith Moon, John Bonham, Neil Pert and Ginger Baker (with Cream) are a pretty solid top group. I put Moon above the rest because of personal taste. Lars Ulrich is also one of the best; like Moon he 'plays the song' as opposed to just keeping the rhythm. But drummers is a bad category as it's not every drummer's job to be all over the place like Moon. Ringo was a pedantic drummer but the perfect guy for The Beatles. Same with Watts. So it's unfair to single out the speed guys as the "best".

What do you call a guy who likes to hang around with musicians? A drummer.

Nice to see you posting a topic that isn't just you whining about something, jerkoffson, but, Christ, how the fuck old are you?

Jerkison lol you're a funny guy

Surprised nobody has mentioned Phil Collins in the drummer discussion

He's one of my personal favs and I don't think it's far fetched to say he was one of the best

Thinking about drummers again, we forgot to mention Peter Chris. I think he deserves a footnote here just for sheer showmanship. I remember seeing him behind that drum kit and being amazed just to watch it. Maybe not as technical as the others we have mentioned, but great to watch. We also forgot an old school guy..... Buddy Rich.

Another old phart here. I am of the Beatles era but I never cared for their music. I don't have enough musical knowledge to know what is good guitar work and what is mediocre or bad guitar work.

As magicrat stated: I know what I like and I know what I don't like.

When it comes to drummers my favourite is Joe Morello of The Dave Brubeck Quartet. Check out his work on Castilian Drums.

My guess is that jerkoffson is at least 60 years old, minimum.

My guess is that jerkoffson is at least 60 years old, minimum.

Now you guys are just getting personal!

I know I am going to piss a lot of people off.

But Van Halen with Sammy was fucking awesome too.

Drummers-Gotta love Ginger Baker. His long version of Toad is amazing. Good looking out for Buddy Rich.

Bassist-I don't know if he's the greatest but I love me some Flea.

Guitarist-Most underrated guitarist of all-time is Ernie Isley. Don't forget, Hendrix stayed with the Isley Brothers.

By the way-The Beatles Birthday Song rocks.

@Rockstar-I have an eclectic collection of kids-cartoon books and one of them is about Kieth Moon. Forgot the title, though.

Rockstar, Clapton and Peter Green were the two best blues guitarists from England. Clapton was not really a hard rocker so its not fair to say he was over-rated. Stevie Ray was admired by me and almost every other guitarist. Try some of his licks, they are awesome. Hendix was an influence of his and so was Buddy Guy. I liked Blackmore, but if you're going with influential, you have to put in Toni Iommi. Sabbath influenced hundreds of bands to this day. And Peart was the best rock drummer. Other drummers always mention Peart to me.

Goodnight Keith Moon. That's it.

And of course there was Chuck Berry. Seems like everyone covered his songs and licks. Even hendrix covered Johnny B. Goode

"Chuck Berry, man. In my book, he's the REAL King of Rock n Roll, man. Chuck Berry, man."-Chong

And a small list of little spoken of great guitarists:

Steve Morse-Dixie Dreggs and Deep Purple
Uli Roth- Early Scorpions
"Buck Dharma" Roeser- Blue Oyster Cult
Steve Hillage- himself
Rory Gallagher

Mikey: Peter Green was only an influence with other guitar players and a few hard core fans. You might as well mention Davies (Kinks) as a guitar influence too, but it's hard to compare these people with Page, Hendrix, etc. They would be good on my "under rated" list though! Music today would be different without them.

Clapton was very influential with Cream and if he had carried on would make the top of my list. However, if you look at his entire body of his work, there's not a lot there. He didn't even play the signature solo on Layla! Clapton and Slash have a lot in common in that they are worshipped by their fans but music today would sound the same without them. Not so for the greats I mentioned in my previous post.

I said SRV is overrated mostly because he sounds a lot like me when I jam that style of blues! Anyone who sounds like me can't be all that good! LOL No, seriously, he's a good player and very popular, but guys like Johnny Winter (who plays a similar style) are rated higher by me than SRV. Winter had those fingers, and blazing speed without the sterility of your usual fast player. Kenny Wayne Shepard is what SRV would have dreamed he could be.

SRV is the Buck Dharma of blues: the best garage band guitarist ever. They both play cliché licks over, and over, and over. Compare their live playing to say Jimmy Page or EVH: those guys CREATED the signature licks everyone else copies. No one copies SRV...what's to copy?

Shout out to Steve Morse (sorry Mikey we disagree on Dharma)and Rory Gallagher, although Gallagher was nothing special lots of people (myself included) stole a lot of his style.

Berry is an icon and should have made the underrated list...although he's rated pretty high. He's an equal to Page, Blackmore, Beck, Van Halen, etc.

I would kill for a Keith Moon cartoon book!!!!! That's just sick.

I know what I like too and the only thing worse than the Beatles was Elvis Presley.

Elvis was a pop phenomenon; the Beatles were not only a pop phenomenon, they were musical geniuses as well.

Best band ever, The Who. Hands down no contest.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention them. Almost equal to the Stones. I like The Who better in fact, but they didn't shake up the music world like the Stones did.

^^^ Good discussions Rockstar.

Best vocalist.....Stevie Winwood

Judging bands is like judging strippers. Yeah, we might be able to agree on what is good vs bad....but we each have our own tastes. Let's just agree that all those bands are pretty damned good and people like Justin Beiber should be shot.

Everybody has different music tastes. So hard to impossible to agree on best anything in regards to music. That said I don't have much respect for someones rock tastes if they really think Beatles and Stones are the two most overrated bands ever.

No mention of Jeff Beck?


Me and some mates have a garage band. We just do it for the women who are suckers for musicians. Here’s a bit we put on youtube. What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VNVIp0IW…

I am with lotsofun and Queen. Fat Bottom Girls. Classic.

Best keyboardist-Ray Manzarek.

^^^ but what about Kieth Emerson, Jon Lord, and Rick Wakeman? All up for debate.

Drummer- Carl Palmer.

I like jerikson's analysis of each individual member of Van Halen. Yes, Eddie V is a guitar god. And Alex is among the better drummers. And David Lee Roth is an interesting vocalist. But as a group, Van Halen isn't even in the discussion as best group of all time. I understand his logic - but ask anyone what their favorite 10, 25, or even 50 favorite songs of all-time are, and I would be shocked if many or even any, of VH's songs would make the list.

But it likely would be filled with songs from the Stone's, Zep, The Beatles, The Doors, AC/DC or The Who.

The biggest difficulty with any evaluation of "best" rock group or musician is this:

People never agree on HOW they will evaluate. Usually it's either "because I like them" or "they're technically really good" or "well they sold a lot of records" or some such stuff.

Here are the correct criteria for evaluation:

1. Technical skills
2 Innovation, in a good way
3. They have something to say with their music; it moves people
4. Their music lasts over generations

Now, is the fact that a lot of people copy someone's music part of the evaluation? Well, yeah, I suppose, but people also copy crap too.

Example:

Hendrix gets a 10 in innovation. Hell, he gets a 20. No question. But does anyone listen to "Purple Haze" for the last 30 years? No. Because it was shit. At the time, it was awesome. And everyone copied Hendrix, because he was the greatest guitar innovator ever. But overall, is he the greatest because of that? No.

The greatest is the one who has it all. Not perfect in any one area, but overall the best.

Stevie Ray was the best in blues. He had an awesome voice. He had very good guitar skills. He had a lot to "say" with his music. He had a great sound. He'd sit down with some of the blues masters and jam, and they'd just look at him in awe, and sound like shit compared to him.

Now, is "because I like them" grounds for voting someone the best? Hell no. Because you like the Beatles, does that make them the best? No. Technically, a lot of what they did sucked. Great innovators for their style, for that era.

Now, one more thing. It's not fair to mention guys like Buddy Rich in this thread. They're not rockers. Although guys like him are the without a doubt the best for their type of music (jazz, whatever).

Personally, I don't think Clapton was very skilled at all. And he didn't have the blues "feel" that someone like SRV did. If you look back now at what Clapton produced, does it last? In hindsight it looks pretty boring, IMO. Very boring.

And by the way, keep in mind one important rule of the universe:

"White men can't dance".

Now, I'm a white guy, but I admit that white guys in general have no soul, no rhythm, no funk. That's a fact. And the black guys know exactly what I'm talking about. We can't dance cuz we don't have rhythm.

Of course, thank god, there are exceptions, and we have such incredible musicians who happen to be white. But when evaluating music, you have to keep in mind that many white guys only know what they like. And that includes country music and shit, and line dancing, which all should be outlawed.

So before the white guys start evaluating music, keep that in mind. :)

Oh, and someone mentioned that Zeppelin copied a lot of their stuff. Very true. The basic contents of Stairway to Heaven was a direct ripoff of a Spirit song (I forget the name).

But here's the difference. Spirit sucked, and they turned that song into nothing. Zeppelin turned it into the greatest rock song of all time. That's because Zeppelin was the best, and Spirit sucked. Though I did like Sardonicus, and they had some good stuff for the time, but otherwise nobody even remembers them.

Every musician copies everyone else. It's a good thing.

"Van Halen isn't even in the discussion as best group of all time."

100% Agree, thank god no one said KISS that band sucked a bag of dicks

Oh and the correct answer was The Clash. They are "the only band that matters"

"Van Halen isn't even in the discussion as best group of all time....Oh and the correct answer was The Clash. They are "the only band that matters""

Have you considered seeking counseling? Seriously.

I think U2 belongs somewhere in the discussion.

yeah I need counseling, have fun listening to the timeless led zeppelin songs about hobbits and shit, ha.

1. Technical skills
2 Innovation, in a good way
3. They have something to say with their music; it moves people
4. Their music lasts over generations

Van Halen has 1 and 2 no where near close to having anything with 3 and 4.

The Clash may not have had technical skills but they get full marks in 2,3, and 4.

I should just stop now it's pointless to argue with old cranky Jerikson. Plus it's all taste. I will take The Clash and Ramones over Led Zeppelin and Van Halen all day every day.

and Technical Skills do not make the band, that's about the least important thing in my opinion. I will take a three chord punk rock band over some technical guitar wizard every time. I also don't give a shit about if a band has huge record sales, or is on VH1. In fact if its for the masses I probably won't like it.

Unfortunately record sales are a huge part to people in determining who's the greatest.

That being said, the only rock is listen to is Maroon 5, so I'm gonna have to go with them!

ime, really I'm not criticizing, but the guys who are into punk are generally white guys who don't mind this continous, mindless, 4/4 beat over and over. It's for guys who have no rhythm whatsoever. I mean, Rockin' the Casbah? And London Calling? It's all the same song, same beat, over and over.

Dude, seriously, accept that you're one of us white guys who can't dance, and have no sense of rhythm whatsoever.

And to say that technical skills don't matter means your only evaluation is the "I like them, therefore they're great". And that doesn't apply. We're trying to make an objective assessment, not your personal likes and dislikes.

you set the objective assessment based on your criteria I don't see everyone agreeing.

By the way ime, here's a test for you to see if what I'm saying is true...

Look online, and find a recording of Miss Etta James singing "At Last". Listen to it, and if it doesn't give you chills, and smack you up'side the head and leave you dizzy, then yes, you are a white guy with no rhythm or soul whatsoever.

Rock n' Roll is about a visceral reaction to the music. Kind of like why an Iggy and Stooges concert will always be way better than Van Halen no matter who the singer is.

If we are making innovation a criterion, we have to include the Moody Blues who figured out how to bring cutting edge studio effects to the live stage in the late sixties/early seventies.

When I was in college just outside New York City, we listened to Allison Steele, "The Night Bird", who used "Nights in White Satin" as the theme song for her WNEW show.

Jerikson go listen to some old pre-Rastafarian reggae and skam or some northern soul, and then talk to me, don't try to teach me about music guy. Just because you like to fuck black chicks doesn't make you any less white.

Also if you are talking about innovation what about guys like Zappa?

"Moody Blues who figured out how to bring cutting edge studio effects to the live stage in the late sixties/early seventies."

Absolutely. Moody Blues where incredibly innovative, incredibly talented musicians (well, most of them), and they had a lot to say musically that is timeless.

I had some cassettes in college of Rush and Led Zeppelin. I succeeded in driving one of my suitemates crazy by playing them over and over again. Of course it wouldn't have worked as well if I didn't have really big speakers. :)
I guess I didn't care much for whatever the radio DJ was playing. That was before Internet downloads. I didn't want to spend money on CD's for a while.

"Also if you are talking about innovation what about guys like Zappa?"

Zappa was beyond innovation. At least in his own mind. He was apparently very talented according to some people. And I loved listening to his moronic, off the cuff stuff from "Just Another Band from LA". Basically a garage band making up goofy shit to entertain themselves.

But that's why I included 4 criteria. Zappa was innovative, but he ultimately produced shit. Does anyone on the planet remember anything he produced? Is it timeless? At the time most people thought it sucked, which it did. Just because you produce weird complicated shit doesn't mean its good.

Kind of like the people who claim that Andy Warhol's stuff was brilliant, only because they want to sound cool and hip. It was, and always will be, shit.

That's my point. Innovative alone means nothing. Zappa is a perfect example.

Eddie, are you kidding?

1. Technical skills
2 Innovation, in a good way
3. They have something to say with their music; it moves people
4. Their music lasts over generations

so based on the above criteria the best rock bands in history in my attempt to cover every aspect from 1-4:
-led zeppelin-page was very very good w/his fingers from 1968-73, a master technician albeit sloppy, and bonzo was the jimmy page of drummers.
-the police
-rolling stones
-early metallica-up until the black album
-Hendrix-the babe ruth of guitarists-btw, purple haze does NOT suck, tune that whoever said it sucks probably is just sick and tired of hearing it.
-queen
-red hot chili peppers

Oh, and by the way, the Spirit song that Zeppelin ripped off is Taurus by Spirit. Check it out if you want a laugh.

And I read an article saying that early this year Spirit decided to sue Zepplin for copying their song. Go no, right?

Regarding keyboardists:

Slick sez: "Best keyboardist-Ray Manzarek."

Mikey replies: "..but what about Kieth Emerson, Jon Lord, and Rick Wakeman?"

Okay, I'll admit I'm not a keyboards guy, and never really pay much attention to them, but Ray Mazarek was with the Doors right? I always felt that the Doors' keyboard stuff was like super simple and uninteresting. Though I was never a Doors fan, so I could be way off.

But like Mikey says, compare that to Wakeman and Yes? I mean, the entire Yes group were rock legends. Incredibly talented, innovative, and have to be in at least the top 10 of rock groups of all time. And geez, Keith Emerson of EL&P? that's some insane keyboards.

But Manzarek? I dunno. And their guitar player, Robby Kreiger? I suppose you can call him a good songwriter, but a great guitar player? I dunno. I'm not seeing it.

"Best band ever, The Who. Hands down no contest."

Okay, well at least top 5. Daltrey was one of the greatest vocalists, no doubt. And of course Keith Moon was insanely good. And just plain insane. Possibly the greatest, I agree. Townsend was an incredible songwriter, insanely innovative. And their sound was legendary.

So yeah, can't argue that the Who was right up there.

But has anyone noticed that in all of this discussion of the greatest groups, it's all (or mostly) from the 80's or earlier? Personally, I think music now is just this commercial crap, scientifically designed to absolutely maximize revenue with no waste whatsoever. You think you could ever get away with "Stairway to Heaven" nowadays, or "Tommy"? No way. They want a 3 minute song with a catchy hook that makes all the young girls get up and dance.

Besides Zeppelin, most of my favorite bands are just in the "near great" category: Judas Priest, Jethro Tull, Cheap Trick, Hole, and solo artists like Kate Bush. I would never argue any of these are in contention for best all time band.

1. Technical skills
2 Innovation, in a good way
3. They have something to say with their music; it moves people
4. Their music lasts over generations

The above is a really excellent criteria to judge bands by; I'm surprised to read such incisive thinking on music in this group! It's funny to me that bands like The Ramones get mentioned because they were terrible from a technical standpoint, didn't innovate a thing yet they moved a lot of people. My college band opened for them and I wasn't a fan, but it struck me how rabid the audience was for their brand of noise. I learned a lot that night.

And I agree that anyone who thinks Zeppelin, The Beatles and the Stones are overrated really have no business commenting in this thread. I was never a big Stones fan but I'm well aware of their brand of genius.

SRV...he still sounds like endless noodling to me, and I do stand behind my comment that no one steals his licks because he doesn't have anything original to steal.

Beck is a guitar god but he is so un-commercial it's hard to figure out where he stands.

Rockstar, maybe SRV is too bluesy for you. I love those licks.

Btw, when you were young, what made you want to play electric guitar?
For me, it was that guitar in "Love is Strange" by Mickey and Silvia,
"Wipeout" by the Surfaris, and stuff by the Ventures.

Too bad Gatorfan doesn't post that much. I'd love to hear him say something like Granite.

Rockstar

Your name fits you

Your comments have been very smart and helpful. You must truly understand music.

Me -- I just know what sounds good to me

Why is jerikson obsessed with establishing racial criteria for liking every genre of music?

How do bands like Soundgarden, Nirvana, Pearl Jam,etc stack up or compare to the classic rock or hard rock bands already mentioned.

^^^Emo downer music that I never cared for. Alice in Chains was probably better music wise.

@Mikey - downer music sure, but certainly not emo. Emo is all that shit like my chemical romance and that stuff


Soundgarden is my favorite of the "grunge" era bands. They are really good musicians and Chris Cornell can actually sing.

I'm surprised we all forgot one of the best bands ever...Pink Floyd

Yeah I hear ya about Floyd, but lets be honest. For decades most of their stuff was crap...not until Dark Side did they come out with the greatest rock album in history. And then after that what did they do? Not much. A couple good albums, but I wouldnt call them great.

The whole Syd Barrett era was a lot of crap. And in the 70s after Syd went into drug induced insanity they just drifted for years not knowing what to do. They finally did some brilliance, but I cant see them in the list of greats. Too much mindless psychedelic noodling for most of their career

^^ agree

The Dark Side of the Moon is one of the best albums ever -- top 10????

But other than that???

Well guys, they only sold more than 250 million records world wide, so they had more than one great album. And Rolling Stone recognizes them as one of the most influential bands ever, and David Gilmour as one of the best guitarists ever.

I will admit they did not have very many catchy hit singles.

But a lot of sales came from "The Wall". Good but no where near the quality of Dark Side. Just my opinion only.

Actually, I liked "Meddle" the best.

"Well guys, they only sold more than 250 million records world wide, so they had more than one great album."

While popularity is important (which is why one of my criteria is that the music "moves" people), you can be extremely popular but suck. The world is filled with stuff that is extremely popular, but it still sucks, from an objective point of view.

From TV, to food, to music, to anything. Popularity and quality are often completely separate.

If you want to judge solely on album sales, then fine. That's popularity. That's not overall greatness.

That last statement is so true.

When I Googled best selling albums of all time, there are names such as Britney Spears, Celine Dionne, Alannis Morrisette, and Norah Jones on the list.

"Yeah I hear ya about Floyd, but lets be honest. For decades most of their stuff was crap...not until Dark Side did they come out with the greatest rock album in history. And then after that what did they do? Not much. A couple good albums, but I wouldnt call them great."

uh say what? wish you were here and the wall, most fans of rock would not consider both of those albums just merely good. animals and the final cut both did suck though.

wow!!! c'mon guys- no love for the eagles?

Darn it Motor, female pop and hip hop singers,and their fans are a whole different animal. :)

The Dude: Jesus, man, can you change the station?

Cab Driver: Fuck you man! You don't like my fucking music, get your own fucking cab!

The Dude: I've had a...

Cab Driver: I pull over and kick your ass out, man!

The Dude: ...had a rough night, and I hate the fucking Eagles, man

"....anyone who thinks Zeppelin, The Beatles and the Stones are overrated really have no business commenting in this thread."

I hear ya'...but WHY? Why do people say the Beatles and the Stones were the greatest?

Yeah, no doubt they were insanely popular. And no doubt their music is timeless. Everyone will always know who the Beatles and the Stones are.

But does that mean they were GREAT? Many think it's pretty obvious because they were so popular. But if you look a little deeper, in the grand scheme of things, were they truly great? Or just right place at the right time with the right formula?

As individuals were they the greatest in their field? If their same songs had been produced by some unknown group from Podunk, Iowa, would they become great hit singles of their time? How much of their "greatness" is implied from their popularity? People tend to get this attitude that if a group is popular, then from then on their shit don't stink. And they quickly forgive stuff like "I am the Walrus", and call it awesome.

Honestly, in the cold light of day, how much of the Beatles stuff was just crap, that became "great" because, well, it was the Beatles.

Absolutely they belong in a class by themselves. Very innovative, loved by millions, timeless music. But certainly not rock greats, and certainly not the greatest individual performers in their field. Come on, Charlie Watts and Ringo Starr?

And you're gonna compare Keith Richards and George Harrison to someone like Jimmy Page? Come on...

And you're gonna call the Stones innovative? They just copied the old blues masters with some very basic stuff. But compared to Zeppelin innovative? Really?

Personally, I think they both deserve a special honor for most loved pop (Beatles) or rock (Stones) groups, and Beatles for most innovative of their day maybe, but I think objectively you need to think twice before over-rating them both.

"When I Googled best selling albums of all time, there are names such as Britney Spears, Celine Dionne, Alannis Morrisette, and Norah Jones..."

Damn, Britney was so fucking hot when she was in her prime before she went all loco and shit. When she wore that almost see-thru glitter body stocking in that video? Holy crap. And that schoolgirl outfit? Sonuvabitch that's hot.

And I just LOVE Norah Jones' voice. Damn. Too bad she's stuck with that country music shit. When she sings stuff like "Come Away with Me", makes me melt into a pool of warm jelly. And she's kinda cute too. I'd do her. I was totally shocked when I found out she's Ravi Shankar's daughter. Y'know the sitar guy from the 60's or whatever from India? No shit, I'm not kidding. Go no, right?

Britney is so fuckin' hot -- no doubt. But no woman should be on the list of best selling albums unless her same is Lita Ford.

Jerikson we get it you don't like the beatles and your pushing that agenda like you always have something to push and you will get madder and madder when no one agrees with you.

Disclaimer the Beatles are not my favorite band no where near close, but you don't get considered by basically everyone to be the greatest rock band of all time by accident. I guess you can go with your whole pop over rock argument. But they are the same thing during the what 7 years they existed. Google why they are the most successful band of all time and they were revolutionary, and innovative.

Here's 10 reason's why they may be considered the greatest band of all time. http://rycehat.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/…

Here is 20 more: http://www.hooksandharmony.com/20-reason…

and maybe the best rock band ever was some group from Iowa, but if no one never heard them then it doesn't matter does it since its a moot point. I also said I don't care about record sales, but the Beatles sold over a Billion albums which is fucking nuts.

not a beatles fan myself but whatever props they get they are all more than well deserved. in a 7-8 year span to pen songs ranging in a gamut from "I wanna hold your hand" to "let it be" is strictly astounding.

as far as the top 4 best rock bands are the big 3 will ALWAYS be the beatles, stones, and zep. so the biggest debate is actually who comes in at the #4 position. more likely than not it'll be a band that's british. the who, Floyd, Sabbath, deep purple (everybody who's picked up an electric guitar always wants to learn smoke on the water first), etc...

regarding Britney spears. an old timer I used to hang out with and I were hanging at some underground lapdance joint. one day he brought in the infamous rolling stone mag issue w/Britney and her seductive jailbait front cover.

so in front of me and these 2 good looking blonde sisters the geezer holds the mag w/2 hands, makes a lecherous face, then kisses the front cover and then takes the mag and starts rubbing it onto his crotch back and forth. I'm laughing so fucking hard the 2 sisters are giving me this look of horror and not the geezer. I'm thinking, "wtf?" they should be giving that look to the geezer, not me.

come back to the lapddance joint the week after and one those 2 sisters says to the other "oh and here come in both of those sickos." what could I do? I just waved my hands to them and said "hi." one of them would eventually empty my load onto my pants an hour or 2 later.

"as far as the top 4 best rock bands are the big 3 will ALWAYS be the beatles, stones, and zep. so the biggest debate is actually who comes in at the #4 position"


That's an excellent point. I never looked at it that way. One can debate the order of the top 3, but that's about all.

You are right the *REAL* question is who else makes the Mount Rushmore of Rock.

Motor opened up another question....best female rocker?
Maybe Lita Ford....Joan Jett?....Pat Benatar?

Blondie maybe?

blondie, anne wilson, patti smythe, Janis joplin

Ime I'm not the child you want to think I am...I'm not pushing agendas or having tantrums if people dont agree...I'm merely asking why. And after thinking about it and reading those links I'm changing my mind. The Beatles are the greatest, no doubt. I still think they're in the pop category not rock, but thats a fairly minor point

One name that I haven't seen - Carlos Santana. That dude did/does some amazing guitar work, and his style is unmistakable.

The piece he did in conjunction with a current artist about four years ago - I heard that piece for the first time and thought, "That sounds like Carlos Santana!"

^^^Yes, Carlos is one of the best guitarists ever to listen to. Can't believe I forgot him.

By your own criteria I think the Beatles have to be the best despite my lack of interest in their music. Though ever since I saw the Cirque show featured around them I've listened to more of their stuff.

Under the same criteria I don't think you can call the Beatles overrated.

Carlos does his own shit. He's waaaay out there. I heard him speak at a small show in 94.

If a female singer is being debated and Aretha Franklin, Nina Simone, and Celia Cruz don't come up, I'm just plain disappointed.

And from out of nowhere, I'm going to say I love the Ronettes and other Motown singers.

The Shirelles.

"...best female rocker?"

Isn't that like saying "best female comedienne"?

What's the word? oxymoron?

carlos Santana? man he wasn't even the best guitarist in his own band!!! neal schon anybody?

I don't consider the Motown sound to be rock. That's not to say it isn't great music. Many of my favorite classic hits of the 60's and early 70's came out of Motown. I love it.

And I realize many of the Motown acts have been inducted into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame. So maybe I'm wrong.

@rattdog, disagree. All the guitarists I knew admired Carlos, not Neal.

@Jerickson... To give you a perspective on what I and others think....
Hall and Oates got elected to the Rock and Roll hall of Fame..!!!!!
They sucked ass...no comparison to any female named here.

I'm very surprised nobody mentioned Huey Lewis and the News....

Actually I'm just kidding. But hell, if we go off into every decent group and musician in every class of music for the last 80 years, this thread will be limping along for another 10 years.

Though I really liked a lot of their stuff. Surprising run of big hits. Certainly not near being great, but gotta give them props.

Ray Manzarek did play the bass at the same time.

"Ray Manzarek did play the bass at the same time."

Fucking hilarious...

@J40-Not much of a a Doors fan. To each their own.

Oh, I thought you were joking, trying to prove he's super awesome...he can play keyboards and bass simultaneously...

I'm shocked no one has mentioned Spinal Tap

Who else could turn it up to eleven?

Springsteen has had an interesting career arc, he was big, then no one talked about him for a while and then he became the biggest thing out there and pretty much stayed like that. He is pretty much like AC DC though they do one thing and they do it well.