- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What band most embodies the essence of rock and roll, IYO?
Posted on 3/31/12 at 11:39 pm to Marciano1
Posted on 3/31/12 at 11:39 pm to Marciano1
quote:
. Recently they've gone mainstream and sort of dropped the blues and began adding sounds to become more radio friendly or something. It still sounds good, but I think these rock praises are being based on their early stuff.
This
0
Posted on 3/31/12 at 11:45 pm to notslim99
quote:
For me, it's Oasis
Just MHO, as you said, those guys are total assclowns. The Brits shittier version of the Black Crows. The guitarist brother is relatively talented,which I assume is why he's doing solo work or whatever these days.
They couldn't hold an 80's American rock bands jock in terms of swag.
Posted on 4/1/12 at 12:32 am to Marciano1
quote:
The Black Keys were a blues rock band early on which brings up some links to Zeppelin/Stones. They were awesome during those first 4 albums or so. Recently they've gone mainstream and sort of dropped the blues and began adding sounds to become more radio friendly or something. It still sounds good, but I think these rock praises are being based on their early stuff.
Fair enough. I guess when I think of the "definitive" rock band, I think bands with that rock attitude, The Who, GnR, etc, the swagger and whatnot, rather than what band is most true to the genre's rhythm and blues roots. And on that token, what about the King himself, Elvis?
Posted on 4/1/12 at 7:39 am to TFTC
The new barbarians
Posted on 4/1/12 at 8:00 am to notslim99
Nobody has been around longer and done more for r&r than the Rolling Stones. Keith Richards is not on the list of all time great guitarist, but tell me someone else who has laid down more instantly recognizable, classic guitar licks. Mick is the quintessential front man.
Posted on 4/1/12 at 11:37 am to Marciano1
when I read rock and roll I gotta go Stones. I think of he degree of unadulterated straight guitar riffs more akin to Chuck Berry. Mick Taylor never got due recognition for his influence in their most classic sound from '69-74.
If it said the essence of rock I would go Zepplin. Their experimentation and influence from different styles was a foundation on what would become classic rock (as differentiated from rock and roll).
I'd throw out AC/DC as another raw rock n roll embodiment. Ten Years After was pretty essential as well. Some Kings of Leon, Jack White, & even Black Crowes capture what I think of in that vein too.
My take is more of a particular sound than the personna, attitude, etc
If it said the essence of rock I would go Zepplin. Their experimentation and influence from different styles was a foundation on what would become classic rock (as differentiated from rock and roll).
I'd throw out AC/DC as another raw rock n roll embodiment. Ten Years After was pretty essential as well. Some Kings of Leon, Jack White, & even Black Crowes capture what I think of in that vein too.
My take is more of a particular sound than the personna, attitude, etc
This post was edited on 4/1/12 at 11:41 am
Posted on 4/1/12 at 12:13 pm to blueslover
When I think of the essence of rock and roll...I tend to think of bands like the Ramones.
Stripped bare of the fatuous gloat of the 80's or the masturbatory riffs of the 70'- the Ramones are more akin to the early blood and guts of Rock and Roll with short and powerful recordings full of energy and rebellion before the love-affair of long-winded albums took hold. Rock and roll was probably never intended to sound like a jazz album with 4-10 minute recordings.
It was something you can jump out of your seat and dance crazy to and it always didn't sound perfect or "produced." The essence of rock and roll to me is something organic like that...like in the beginning...the band and songs that give you instant feeling of that youthful exuberance.
That all said, Stones would have to be #1 as they covered all the bases since they lasted forever.
Stripped bare of the fatuous gloat of the 80's or the masturbatory riffs of the 70'- the Ramones are more akin to the early blood and guts of Rock and Roll with short and powerful recordings full of energy and rebellion before the love-affair of long-winded albums took hold. Rock and roll was probably never intended to sound like a jazz album with 4-10 minute recordings.
It was something you can jump out of your seat and dance crazy to and it always didn't sound perfect or "produced." The essence of rock and roll to me is something organic like that...like in the beginning...the band and songs that give you instant feeling of that youthful exuberance.
That all said, Stones would have to be #1 as they covered all the bases since they lasted forever.
Posted on 4/1/12 at 12:42 pm to Zamoro10
I think it's Led Zeppelin based on a variety of factors. The Stones would be right there with them, though....
1) Great songs
2) Had a "don't give a frick" attitude, without going too overboard - they still could keep it "fun"
3) Iconic frontman
4) Big live sound and energetic stage show
5) had their own plane and definitely lived the rock n roll excess (not that this factor is essential, but it kinda works into the "essence" of rock n roll).
As I mentioned above, the Stones would probably be right up there for many of those reason I listed for Zep.
The Beatles, while probably my all time fav band, had most of these elements, but they quit touring midway through. Had they stayed together a little bit longer and toured more they would be in that top spot on my list.
just my humble opinion.
1) Great songs
2) Had a "don't give a frick" attitude, without going too overboard - they still could keep it "fun"
3) Iconic frontman
4) Big live sound and energetic stage show
5) had their own plane and definitely lived the rock n roll excess (not that this factor is essential, but it kinda works into the "essence" of rock n roll).
As I mentioned above, the Stones would probably be right up there for many of those reason I listed for Zep.
The Beatles, while probably my all time fav band, had most of these elements, but they quit touring midway through. Had they stayed together a little bit longer and toured more they would be in that top spot on my list.
just my humble opinion.
Posted on 4/1/12 at 1:34 pm to notslim99
Boston
Posted on 4/1/12 at 1:41 pm to Carson123987
Definitive rock and roll band?
The replacements
The replacements
Posted on 4/1/12 at 1:51 pm to notslim99
Any credible list would have to include:
Buddy Holly and the Crickets
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones (absolutely essential)
The Who
The Clash
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
Of course there are others, but I'm in a hurry.
Buddy Holly and the Crickets
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones (absolutely essential)
The Who
The Clash
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
Of course there are others, but I'm in a hurry.
Posted on 4/1/12 at 1:56 pm to Marciano1
quote:
Led Zeppelin. No one did it better.
Zep was the complete band from top to bottom. Watch the old live performances, they embody RnR. Stones are on the same level, but Zep seemed to never ever make a boring song, and that sells it.
Posted on 4/1/12 at 2:03 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
GG Allin,
The Mentors
The Mentors
Posted on 4/1/12 at 2:11 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Stones are on the same level, but Zep seemed to never ever make a boring song, and that sells it.
Rock n Rollers turned on the Stones pretty quickly when they came out with their "disco" album. It was the first time I ever really heard the term "sold out" used on such a wide spread scale. I think the early Stones were the epitome of RnR though.
Posted on 4/1/12 at 2:15 pm to notslim99
AC/DC
Posted on 4/1/12 at 6:20 pm to RandyVandy
quote:
but the Black Keys are more of a hipster festival band than a straight ahead, testosterone and alcohol fueled classic LA/London Rock band
First off, frick London and LA right in their ear. Rock and roll can come from anywhere, and I'm sick of middle America having to look overseas or to the big cities to feel "cool". Screw that. If you're from Akron, you're from Akron. Rock out.
And the Black Keys are a flippin' awesome blues rock band who paid their dues playing in the lousiest of clubs in the country before some NYC hipster deigned to invite them into the club. Who needs their seal of approval?
Oh, the correct answer in the Stones. But I will accept the Stooges. Dirty, nasty, grungy music that you can't invite your girlfriend to listen to. Ugly music for ugly people, made by kids in a garage who are a little out of step with the cool kids in school. Rock is three chords and a whole lot of attitude.
Which is why a lot of punk bands are closer to 50s rock than their technically proficient "professional" peers.
Posted on 4/1/12 at 6:37 pm to Baloo
quote:
a lot of punk bands are closer to 50s rock than their technically proficient "professional" peers.
Posted on 4/1/12 at 6:38 pm to Baloo
quote:
Which is why a lot of punk bands are closer to 50s rock than their technically proficient "professional" peers.
Because Bo Diddly and Les Paul weren't technically proficient?
Posted on 4/1/12 at 6:39 pm to RandyVandy
quote:weren't exactly peers of the punk bands
Bo Diddly and Les Paul
Posted on 4/1/12 at 7:35 pm to RandyVandy
Bo Diddley really wasn't. He just attacked the guitar. He was still playing blues licks. Awesome, awesome blues licks, but nearly the same riff for every song.
I love it.
I love it.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News