Quote
kees
Whether you like them or not, both Springsteen and U2 also deserve to be mentioned as competitors for the other bands mentioned here.

And what drugs are you taking these days?

Coming from the Mr Done Deal Of 2010 And 2011 I think he'll probably ignore what you said...and hilariously it's YOU that shows such a lack of insight.

Quote
kees
Whether you like them or not, both Springsteen and U2 also deserve to be mentioned as competitors for the other bands mentioned here.

I'd put The Allman Bros. ahead of Bruce and U2.

The Stones are not a Rock band so the only thing they have in common is being English, playing electric guitars, and having their careers peak at roughly the same time. Oh, and maybe both threw TV's out hotel windows.

I steadfastly reject that the Stones are analogous to, or competitors of, Zeppelin, AC/DC, Aerosmith, or for that manner Journey or Rush. Any resemblances to Rock bands are superficial at best. Those groups exist at a much different level (a lower one, in my view).

even though the stones legacy is by far the best ever at the moment, its not even debatable btw, but if u2 happens to finish their career with a 40 year plus run with all original members i think they will wind up with the greatest legacy hands down, yet to be determined though

Amen! I totally agree. Not many people mention the Allmans because of the lineup changes, but if we're taking The Stones' and Pink Floyd's career through lineup changes, then the ABB deserves a mention.

Dare I say The Grateful Dead's 30-yr legacy of original live performance places them among the best? Or maybe they're not English enough for this forum.

Also, Pearl Jam just had their 20-yr anniversary, and lets be honest -- Is there a harder working rock band over the last 20 yrs than Pearl Jam?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-07 05:47 by Laughingsam.

Quote
71Tele
The Stones are not a Rock band so the only thing they have in common is being English, playing electric guitars, and having their careers peak at roughly the same time. Oh, and maybe both threw TV's out hotel windows.

I steadfastly reject that the Stones are analogous to, or competitors of, Zeppelin, AC/DC, Aerosmith, or for that manner Journey or Rush. Any resemblances to Rock bands are superficial at best. Those groups exist at a much different level (a lower one, in my view).

Very well put.

Quote
mrgrowl791

Quote
kees
Whether you like them or not, both Springsteen and U2 also deserve to be mentioned as competitors for the other bands mentioned here.

I'd put The Allman Bros. ahead of Bruce and U2.

In terms of playing and sheer band chemistry, the original Allman brothers band line up has no peers.However,I think Bruce and the E street band have a greater body of work and they have put many legendary lives shows over the years just like The Allmans have as well.It's quite hard to compare these two acts because they are based on different approaches to music.I dunno, I love both immensely

Well well,here seems to be a bit of an disagreement.I want to point out few things about legacy,what that means?

In my opinion,legacy means what your history left for future,on this case,what these bands left for future.Back in 1962 they didn´t know anything about legacy,except to continue sharing the message of blues.

Well well,here seems to be a bit of an disagreement.I want to point out few things about legacy,what that means?

In my opinion,legacy means what your history left for future,on this case,what these bands left for future.Back in 1962 they didn´t know anything about legacy,except to continue sharing the message of blues.


To me,this means what DID these bands left for us and for future generations,and how they are STILL copied,mystified and loved,and they influence todays bands.

Someone here mentioned U2 and Springsteen,they came after,U2 2 decades later.

The legacy isn´t about you like the band or you don´t,they are just facts,facts of musical life.If i start to think about this,and also bands that i don´t listen.
Like WHO,or BEATLES,even i do like some of their songs.

Beatles&Stones,its allways between them,right? to me its not,Beatles gave the legacy of a 4 piece band,how to sell your stuff to teenagers,look one,you don´t really are.But,they did songs,many of them which will never die.

Stones gave a whole new meaning,what is a BAND,how it works,how it operates.
And ofcourse the badboy image,which still carries with them.I think their first
years,1966-1969 changed every rock bands musical tastes+for this their 71-83 period which gave us immortality on rock business.Thye have wrote songs,that noone will never write again,simple,either you like the songs or not.

if i had to make list,which actually did have lot of influence on todays music,my list would look like this.

1.The Rolling Stones
2.The Beatles
3.The Who
4.Led Zeppelin
5.Black sabbath
6.Pink Floyd

Noone ever remembers Black Sabbath,which is wrong!! They did came up with NEW SOUND and STYLE,and it still influences todays heavy metal bands.

After these bands came
Queen
ac dc
iron maiden
rainbow
etc....

which gave THEIR legacy to the band of 1980`s and 1990´s.But remember,those above came first,and they came from BLUES and ELVIS.

And if you really want to dig this deeper,you will have to go Africa,200 years back.

Well today's relavant indie rock acts are mostly inspired by joy Division and Bruce Springsteen among others, so thes acts should be ranked vey high in terms of influence and legacy.Black Sabbath deserves to be mentioned as well since they took hard rock in completely different direction which spawned thousands of different acts.

The most influental acts in my opinion:

The Beatles
Bob Dylan
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Kinks
The Velvet Underground
Cream
Jimi Hendrix
The Band
Led Zeppelin
The Allman Brothers band
Black Sabbath
Nick Drake
Neil Young
Joni Mitchell
The Stooges
MC5
The New York Dolls
Bruce Springsteen
Big Star
The Ramones
The Clash
The Talking Heads
Joy Division
Metallica
REM
U2
The Smiths
...

I must have omitted someone important but I think that this list is pretty accurate



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-07 10:52 by stones_serb.

If there is any band which has any legacy and being a "White" band it is only the Rolling Stones. Only they have turned musc into revolution and only after the Stones any NO to the establishment, politics was possible at all. The Stones have been the first figures in Contemporary Music History (Perhaps Mozart, but that's another story) which ued or have been used, to change life. Everything else after that was not a copy but a reply or answer to the change in everything.
This is why the Stones are still a bit disrespected in the US (Keith tells a lot about this) and Led Zep is not. Led Zep may have taken the lead in the 70ies, but it was the Stones who did the shit work and it was the Stones who showed that you can make a lot of money with Blues/Rock/ and/or Rock and Roll.
Even today Zep gets much more airplay than the Stones.
So there is really no point in any legacy of the Beatles as they never intended to change anything. Once they tried to, they broke up. Of course they did nice songs, but that was all.

As the Stones started the fire in the 60ies they also burnt it down in Altamount. The only other Band who may have been different on the other side of the ocean was The Doors.

Sorry lads, but that is my only little opinion and even if I call them Rolling Stones Big Band today it's the only Band which accompanied us for more than 2 generations. Any questions to such a legacy?

Metallica was and still is heavily influenced by Black Sabbath,but metallica carried this to this day.

I also like to think,Iron Maiden has a BIG influence on todays heavy metal music.
But they,grew up listening,stones,beatles,who and led zeppelin.Theres no way go around it.

And from the States,its DOORs,Hendrix and Dylan.But DYlan and Hendrix were actually solo artist,Dylan still is,so the their legacy is a bit different,same goes to Neil Young.But their OWN influence on music was and still is,Dylans poetic lyrics influensed a lot.
Hendrix,well,do i need to say it?

MC5 and Clash had a much bigger influence than they are creditet for.

I also forgot to mention early Alice Cooper,as his influences was for theatrical rock music.A same genre as early Bowie in my opinion.

Quote
stones_serb
Well today's relavant indie rock acts are mostly inspired by joy Division and Bruce Springsteen among others, so thes acts should be ranked vey high in terms of influence and legacy.Black Sabbath deserves to be mentioned as well since they took hard rock in completely different direction which spawned thousands of different acts.

The most influental acts in my opinion:

The Beatles
Bob Dylan
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Kinks
The Velvet Underground
Cream
Jimi Hendrix
The Band
Led Zeppelin
The Allman Brothers band
Black Sabbath
Nick Drake
Neil Young
Joni Mitchell
The Stooges
MC5
The New York Dolls
Bruce Springsteen
Big Star
The Ramones
The Clash
The Talking Heads
Joy Division
Metallica
REM
U2
The Smiths
...

I must have omitted someone important but I think that this list is pretty accurate

Why does it have to be just about bands, & not solo artists? Elvis, Bill Haley, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Sam Cooke, James Brown, Ray Charles... these all (directly or indirectly) had far more influence than almost all of the above.

How many people (at least in the UK) can even name an Allman Brothers or Nick Drake song? I know I can't.

You are right about Elvis, Buddy Holly and the rest of fifties legends but i tended to focus on rock era(as opposed to fifties rock 'n' roll and r&b) which in my opinion started in the sixties.There were also some great inspiring blues artists that came up with the essence of what would become rock music.Skip James and Robert Johnson are just as bit as relevant if not more than any of the acts I listed.

Also it could be argued that an artist doesn't have to be popular among the general public in order to inspire innumerable bands.I doubt that many people listen to Big Star but they are very often cited as the major influence by very popular and acclaimed rock bands.The same goes for Parsons and Drake.The Velvet Underground initially sold meager couple of thousands records but you won't find many critics disputing them as one of the most important bands of the sixties

Sleepy city, if you can't name any songs by The Allman Brothers band, you should definitely get some of their records.I recommend compilation Beginning comprising of their first two records and Live at Fillmore East.If you love The Stones you'll be blown away by these.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-07 12:05 by stones_serb.

Quote
stones_serb
You are right about Elvis, Buddy Holly and the rest of fifties legends but i tended to focus on rock era(as opposed to fifties rock 'n' roll and r&b) which in my opinion started in the sixties.There were also some great inspiring blues artists that came up with the essence of what would become rock music.Skip James and Robert Johnson are just as bit as relevant if not more than any of the acts I listed.

Also it could be argued that an artist doesn't have to be popular among the general public in order to inspire innumerable bands.I doubt that many people listen to Big Star but they are very often cited as the major influence by very popular and acclaimed rock bands.The same goes for Parsons and Drake.The Velvet Underground initially sold meager couple of thousands records but you won't find many critics disputing them as one of the most important bands of the sixties

OK, here's three very influential names from the 60s / 70s: Toots & The Maytels, Jimmy Cliff, Bob Marley & The Wailers.

Quote
stones_serb
Sleepy city, if you can't name any songs by The Allman Brothers band, you should definitely get some of their records.I recommend compilation Beginning comprising of their first two records and Live at Fillmore East.If you love The Stones you'll be blown away by these.

You're right, I should at least check them out.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele
The Stones are not a Rock band so the only thing they have in common is being English, playing electric guitars, and having their careers peak at roughly the same time. Oh, and maybe both threw TV's out hotel windows.

I steadfastly reject that the Stones are analogous to, or competitors of, Zeppelin, AC/DC, Aerosmith, or for that manner Journey or Rush. Any resemblances to Rock bands are superficial at best. Those groups exist at a much different level (a lower one, in my view).

Very well put.

Very very well put!

Stones
Clash
Who
Zep
AC DC

...then several rungs down the ladder, everyone else

Quote
71Tele
The Stones are not a Rock band so the only thing they have in common is being English, playing electric guitars, and having their careers peak at roughly the same time. Oh, and maybe both threw TV's out hotel windows.

I steadfastly reject that the Stones are analogous to, or competitors of, Zeppelin, AC/DC, Aerosmith, or for that manner Journey or Rush. Any resemblances to Rock bands are superficial at best. Those groups exist at a much different level (a lower one, in my view).

there are levels to this stuff?

Quote
marko
Noone ever remembers Black Sabbath,which is wrong!!

That's because Peter Noone isn't part of iorr.org! There are no other Noone's as far as I am aware.

No one ever mentions Black Sabbath? Their influence was big but I don't think it was as big as Led Zeppelin, the biggest influence of all the major league rock bands.

Quote
stones_serb
Well today's relavant indie rock acts are mostly inspired by joy Division and Bruce Springsteen among others, so thes acts should be ranked vey high in terms of influence and legacy.Black Sabbath deserves to be mentioned as well since they took hard rock in completely different direction which spawned thousands of different acts.

The most influental acts in my opinion:

The Beatles
Bob Dylan
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Kinks
The Velvet Underground
Cream
Jimi Hendrix
The Band
Led Zeppelin
The Allman Brothers band
Black Sabbath
Nick Drake
Neil Young
Joni Mitchell
The Stooges
MC5
The New York Dolls
Bruce Springsteen
Big Star
The Ramones
The Clash
The Talking Heads
Joy Division
Metallica
REM
U2
The Smiths
...

I must have omitted someone important but I think that this list is pretty accurate

Pink Floyd

A few years ago, my brother-in-law and I were getting to know each other, talking music and so on, and he decided to throw a big one at me: "You know, the Stones are great and all, but they don't really compare to Led Zeppelin..."

I thought this was so outrageous that I couldn't really respond--but it has been eating at me for years now and it occasionally flares into an active argument. The happy thing for me is that because I was provoked, and because I have had to think about it, I can say that it has become more and more and more obvious to me that, while all things are relative and matters of taste and that they come in shades of gray and that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that LED ZEPPELIN DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE STONES. NOT EVEN IN THE SAME WEIGHT CLASS. NOT NOW, NOT EVER. And mind you, I say this as a person who spent two years in boarding school positively drenched in Led Zeppelin during the 1980's. I'm actually a big fan...

So? Top four albums?

Zep IV
Zep II
Zep I
Zep III? Or Physical Graffiti? or Houses?

vs.

Beggar's Banquet
Let It Bleed
Sticky Fingers
Exile

Zeppelin IV is one of the all-time greats and deserves its rep and sales, but "Stairway" is, to my mind, a big, bloated, pretentious mess (Amen to you, Rockman). And as awesome and thundering as it is, "When The Levee Breaks" is a poor man's "Gimme Shelter."

Zeppelin II, which I always thought of as a masterpiece, also breaks down in some important ways: "Thank You," even with its lovely acoustic/electric dynamics, has syrupy Plant lyrics and vocals. And with all due respect to Bonham, "Moby Dick" is an indulgence. "The Lemon Song" and "Bring It On Home" and "Whole Lotta Love" grab from Howlin' Wolf, Sonny Boy Williamson and Muddy Waters in some creative and successful ways, but apart from the last, they don't seem quite as special as time goes on. Basically more percussive thunder and guitar fireworks layered on Chess classics that are perfect in their own right. Pretty much illustrates the whole (sometimes exciting) Zep formula: take blues (or folk or world) and amp it to the max. Fun, gloriously stupid and excessive, perfect for huge venues, but never a match for the Stones' smarts and sexiness, their wit and sass. I mean, never. And Plant's sensitive/hippie/mystic lyrics drag the whole LZ enterprise down further....

And as fond as I am of Zeppelin I or III, I just can't see any of these four albums matching up favorably with their Stones counterparts from the celebrated '68-'72 renaissance. There just isn't a weak cut anywhere in the Stones' output during the period, nothing to match, say, "Out On The Tiles" or "Celebration Day" or "Moby Dick." So, at the top of each band's catalogue, and in the LP format that defined Led Zeppelin, the Stones take a huge victory.

But what if we're to isolate the double albums? The holy grail of the ambitious (the "white album," Electric Ladyland, Blonde On Blonde, London Calling) rock'n'roll band?

Physical Graffiti vs. Exile? I love the fragments from the 1970 sessions: "Bron-Yr-Aur," "Black Country Woman," and--of course--"Boogie With Stu." If they had used those tracks, "Poor Tom" and "Hey Hey What Can I Do" to create some kind of double Zep III, it might've been one of the alltime greats. And as much fun as "Houses Of The Holy" is, so much of Graffiti is leaden and dull and overwrought. "Down By The Seaside?" "In The Light?" Ugh. And "In My Time Of Dying" demonstrates the over-amped blues thing in an even more pointlessly excessive way. (While I do have a soft spot for "Nobody's Fault But Mine," it's pretty funny to listen back-to-back with Blind Willie Johnson's--armed only with an acoustic guitar, a voice and 1930's technology, he goes toe-to-toe with Zep's assault. Incredible power, there.)

Exile is Exile: It's Go-Go-Honky Tonk-Juke Joint-Revival Hall heaven--set on the French Riviera and the Sunset Strip and co-starring the most beautiful women, the most reckless sidekicks and the best drugs the world has ever seen. All that tucked into the best--and most appropriate--album cover ever designed. Again, the questions being: who's smarter, sexier, tougher, leaner, meaner? Think about that as you listen to the Gothic Moog playing on "In The Light." Spinal Tap all the way, baby.

What about comebacks? What about surviving? Some Girls vs....what? Zeppelin never did come back, never did respond creatively or successfully to punk and the late 70's. After a decline that I would say began with Houses Of The Holy, (again, think about it: even if you consider Houses to be on par with the first four--dubious--they never made a completely successful new LP after 1973) the creative balance and the sound of the group shifted dramatically with In Through The Out Door. So, as great as "In The Evening" is, and as much fun as "Fool In The Rain" can be, think about "All Of My Love" and thank God that they stopped (for the worst reason imaginable) before they started making 80's records.

Live album? Well, now that Zeppelin has opened its archives, the How The West Was Won album stands up pretty wonderfully. But The Song Remains The Same was, like Zeppelin itself, a more bombastic--and more ponderous ("No Quarter?" for what, 20 minutes?) version of that wicked energy and swing that is distilled so wonderfully onto Ya-Ya's. Zeppelin was tremendous onstage and their setlists and overall swagger actually made them rivals to the Stones' far superior songs. But, honestly, even if one prefers Page's virtuosity to Keith's slash-and-burn, would any but the most ardent Zep fan choose Plant over Jagger as a singer and frontman? I mean, really? Anyone? It doesn't take a whole lotta watching Percy cock his hip and flip his big, blond mane back while wailing on, say, the hugely overrated "Since I've Been Loving You," to decide that Jagger of any period--right up to the Millenium Dome of August, 2007--is in another realm, entirely.

So, for me, the Stones win the late 1960's and the 1970's pretty handily. Very handily, in fact. During the period where both bands were functioning, the Stones delivered more and better, recorded material overall. Meanwhile, Zeppelin, as good as they were in concert, could do no better than match the Stones. And while the Stones in 1982 entered a period of only project-by-project work that lasted to Spring 2010, they managed to come up with at least five first-class songs for each new release through the 80's, 90's and 2000's, songs that any other band at any other time would kill for (some will debate this, I'm happy to take it up another time). The Rolling Stones are (forgive the American-centric analogy) an alltime great, a "five tool" player, they're Willie Mays. And they're back in New York, with the Mets, in 1972. Are they at their peak? No, but they still have plenty of recorded moments--and many, many more live ones--that demonstrate amply why they're the best ever.

Hmmmm...I'm forgetting something...what can it be? Oh yeah, THE STONES HAD PRODUCED AN EPOCHAL, HALL OF FAME BODY OF WORK BEFORE LED ZEPPELIN HAD EVEN FORMED. ZEPPELIN STEPPED INTO A KIND OF ROCK'N'ROLL STARDOM THAT WAS INVENTED BY THE STONES (and Elvis and the Beatles, of course, though their appeal and their imagery was so different--almost outside rock music). British blues? World music? ("Paint It, Black" vs. "Kashmir" may actually sum up the whole argument.) "Heavy" acoustic music? I love Zeppelin's dense Anglo-Celtic folk-blues thing. I love it. But it's the only part of the whole package that belongs entirely to them--and I'm not sure I'm giving Fairport Convention adequate credit when I say that...

It's funny. At the Joint, in Vegas in 1998, I had the amusing experience of watching the Stones from third row center, while surrounded by Tommy Lee and Pam Anderson, Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons and Lars Ulrich from Metallica--as well as Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Eddie Murphy, Jack Nicholson, Dennis Hopper, Leonardo DiCaprio and a gang of others. It was hilarious to watch the most sought-after people on Planet Earth, the ones that supposedly define power and hipness and cool, absolutely melt and cower before the Rolling Stones. And in the case of the metal guys, it occurred to me that while they all always prattle on about Zeppelin and Sabbath as heavy influences, those references are always based on the foundation of love and reverence for the Stones. In many sub-genres of rock'n'roll, but especially in hard rock/heavy metal, before Pagey and Ozzy, before the Yardbirds even, it all starts with the Stones--always. It's dat attitude, baby...

Zeppelin has eight studio albums and a little over ten years of history. They're similar to the Beatles in that they have a catalogue of very manageable size and that it presents a clear and satisfying story of the band. The Stones have nearly fifty years of studio and live albums, singles, concerts and films. It's a sprawling, messy tale, with ups and downs, blind alleys and hidden jackpots. The vast majority of people, when confronted with this, will buy Hot Rocks and then pay for expensive concert tickets and t-shirts. That's a shame, but it has nothing to do with the relative merits of the bands. If it sometimes seems that the Stones' legacy isn't as visible, that's only because the influence and the legacy is woven through every single aspect of the record and concert businesses--and through the idea of rock'n'roll itself. The Stones are an entertainment juggernaut and a multinational corporation. You know what else? THEY ARE THE BEST GARAGE/BAR BAND ON PLANET EARTH. Period. And that--not beating Grand Funk Raiload's attendance record at some Godforsaken Florida football stadium--is the name of the game in rock'n'roll. That's at the very core.

My sense? Elvis, Chuck Berry, Dylan, the Beatles, and the Stones all swirl around at the very top of the heap--maybe, in a weird way, the Beach Boys, too. All matters of taste aside, those are the artists whose historical importance is crucial and indisputable. And it's a long, looooooong way down to the next tier...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-08 03:29 by Rev. Robert W..

I know it's a long post, and that I wrote it, but I'm feeling pretty strongly about the above point. Please forgive my bump...

Good post, Rev. Counters some of the utterly laughable banalities that have made much of this thread unreadable.

Quote
Rev. Robert W.
I know it's a long post, and that I wrote it, but I'm feeling pretty strongly about the above point. Please forgive my bump...

Thanks for the bump, I didn't want to re-post the entire thing only say it is a thing of beauty and truth.
I don't get this revisionist Zep thing. In the VH! poll, Zep beat the Stones and I was outraged for the same reason your relative pissed you off.
There is no comparison. I love Zep, but the Stones crossed eras, were part of a cultural landscape with stuff like BB, Let It Bleed and Exile and all the way through Some Girls, the answer to punk and disco.
Zep was musically brilliant and diverse, but lacked the soul and cultural relevance of the Stones music.
And too many damn songs about Gnomes and warlocks and some such nonsense.

The Stones defined rock'n' roll. I think for example the first few seconds of Can't You Hear Me Knocking is almost the perfect definition of rock music, and from the beginning until 1981 (for me) they just couldn't do wrong. I think Led Zeppelin's music suffered a bit because of Plant and Bonham. They were rather unsubtle and sometimes vulgar. I know Bonzo was a monster drummer. But sometimes he sounded like a drunken, heavier Keith Moon. And Plant sometimes relied on these terrible cliches like "oh baby oh baby oh baby" during live performances. Jimmy Page was a brilliant guitar player and producer, but he stole too many riffs and melodies from other people without giving proper credit (the list is endless). John Paul Jones for me was the odd man out there. I agree with Keith when he said that they were "thrown together".

Quote
Rev. Robert W.
THEY ARE THE BEST GARAGE/BAR BAND ON PLANET EARTH.

the stones are a garage band now? that's the first i ever heard of that. you must be joking...

Quote
Rev. Robert W.
I know it's a long post, and that I wrote it, but I'm feeling pretty strongly about the above point. Please forgive my bump...

It might have been long, but well written and very enjoyable nonetheless.