2. music
  3. 1238620414

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.
theraiguy
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,210 posts
 
"Rolling stones are the most misunderstood band in history."

Say what?
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,210 posts
 
It was pretty much old hat in its pure form once The Beatles "Sgt. Pepper" album hit.

Still a lot of fun though.
martykl
3,578 posts
 
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.
phasecorrect's avatar
phasecorrect
2,013 posts
 
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.
martykl
3,578 posts
 
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.)
More to discover