rock and roll

[Guest mesepher]

What one band defines everything that rock and roll is.

 

the WHO

these guys were/are the innovators of rock and roll.

 

* The windmill and stage jump you see done from dozens of groups was invented by Pete Townshend.

* Roger Daltrey's swinging of the microphone

* the destruction of the set, instruments and all

* spitting on the reporters, cameramen

 

and lets not forget the music.

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

The Clash

[Guest EricMM]

Ok if you're talking the lifestyle perhaps the Who, but if you're talking the MUSIC, then I would proooobably say Led Zepplin. They are just... better than anyone else.

[Guest El Satanico]

Now i happen to like Led Zeppelin, but they aren't better then everyone else.

[Guest redbaron51]

The Clash was more punk than rock.

 

I would say Who is what Rock N Roll is really about

[Guest sk8420kid]

Rock- The Who

Punk- The Clash

Metal- Metallica

Post Punk/Hardcore- Fugazi, Sonic Youth, or ATDI.

[Guest converge241]

The Hellacopters

 

seriously

[Guest La Parka Es Mi Papa]

The answer, obviously, is the Rolling Stones. The Who is a close second.

[Guest IPCRivalSchools]

The Who mark 1 defined rock n' roll to an extent (anything without Keith Moon isn't really the Who at all), but the real defining band were probably the Rolling Stones (exile on Main St is the rock n' roll album , or to a lesser extent AC/DC w/ Bon Scott.

 

and in the otherr genres, IMO:

 

Punk: Henry Rollins or Patti Smith

Metal : Ozzy Osbourne

Post-Hardcore/Punk - Ian McKaye

 

Ian

[Guest goodhelmet]

The answer, obviously, is the Rolling Stones. The Who is a close second.

la parka is right. the stones personify everything a rock n' roll group wants to be. the music was dirty also. makes you feel like a slut.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Motörhead. Phil was arrested in a hotel for being drunk and disorderly once, and continued screaming "ROCK N' ROLL! ROCK N' ROLL!" as he was being dragged out of the hotel lobby. Now THAT's rock n' roll.

 

The music is dirty, aggressive, and great to party to. It still pisses off parents after 25+ years, and they've yet to go downhill (and they're in their 60's now).

[Guest LooseCannon]

The Rolling Stones, obviously. Dirty, energetic, rebellious, guitar fueled, and with a heavy blues influence.

[Guest saturnmark4life]

I think the who are certainly up there, as are thin lizzy. as current bands go, andrew wk and rocket from the crypt seem to embody rock and roll more than anyone else at this point.

[Guest Shaved Bear]

we have...

Who

Motorhead

Stones

Clash

Led Zeppelin

and others

 

but it depends what genre you are talking about

[Guest La Parka Es Mi Papa]

I would also like to add GG Allin and the Sex Pistols, and second the vote for Motorhead.

[Guest La Parka Es Mi Papa]

Also, I forgot to add Guns N' Roses.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I'm having a hard time seeing GG Allin embodying rock and roll. He was a crazy, rebellious guy and all, but musically there was just no "roll" in his rock. At least from the stuff I heard.

[Guest saturnmark4life]

I'm having a hard time seeing GG Allin embodying rock and roll. He was a crazy, rebellious guy and all, but musically there was just no "roll" in his rock. At least from the stuff I heard.

yeah, he was definitely the most 'extreme' rocker out there, but wasn't really about the music at all. The reason i pick my beloved AWK(~!) is not really because you can call his music rock n roll, but that he is the pure embodiment of the jumping around, having fun and not caring about anything side of it.

[Guest redbaron51]

i'm having a hard time seeing Rolling Stones being what true rock and roll is suppose to be. They are good, but too me Rock and Roll is loud, great songs, and just plain out kick ass at a live show, like the who

[Guest Rock Candy]

I'm having a hard time seeing GG Allin embodying rock and roll. He was a crazy, rebellious guy and all, but musically there was just no "roll" in his rock. At least from the stuff I heard.

To me, G.G. Allin was more of a criminal psychopath who just happened to make punk rock, not a punk rocker who had a few brushes with the law. And seriously, the only one who ever took that guy 100 percent seriously was Allin himself (not counting his bands and fans), since you'll never hear or read anything about his "talent" or "legacy". Just his defecating on stage, raping women in the audience, etc.

 

A friend once told me that Allin was a genuine talent "who suffered from severe mental illness". No offense to her, but I still have a hard time believing that.

 

I would go with the Rolling Stones, too, but there's probably thousands of other bands who could challenge for that title out there.

 

-Ben

[Guest LooseCannon]

To me, G.G. Allin was more of a criminal psychopath who just happened to make punk rock, not a punk rocker who had a few brushes with the law.

I agree with that sentiment completely. His music was fucking awful though funny at times. The only reason I can see that people liked him was because he was so fucking crazy. Though I'd be scared to death to have gone to any of his shows.

[Guest meanmaisch]

The Rolling Stones, without a doubt.

[Guest LooseCannon]

i'm having a hard time seeing Rolling Stones being what true rock and roll is suppose to be. They are good, but too me Rock and Roll is loud, great songs, and just plain out kick ass at a live show, like the who

I tend to think The Who pushed the contemporary boundaries of rock n' roll for their time, but in terms of pure rock and roll, the Stones are the apotheosis, at least in my opinion.

 

And we should all keep in mind, that the term "rock and roll" is conceptually different than the simple term "rock." Rock and Roll is bluesy and has some swing in it, whereas rock is similiar but is excised of the r&b influences.

[Guest La Parka Es Mi Papa]

I can't believe everyone no-sold the Sex Pistols. Nyar.

[Guest redbaron51]

Sex Pistols are more punk than rock.

 

Its like stating Megadeth is rock but really its metal

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

And we should all keep in mind, that the term "rock and roll" is conceptually different than the simple term "rock." Rock and Roll is bluesy and has some swing in it, whereas rock is similiar but is excised of the r&b influences.

Hence the Motörhead nomination, as Lemmy was originally in a blues band called Hawkwind. Motörhead is best described as thrash/blues/punk/rock n' roll, I guess...

[Guest LooseCannon]

Yeah I can see Motorhead. The one thing that's really impressed me about Motorhead, even though I'm not much of a fan of theirs, is the way their stuff still defies categorization, even all these years later.

[Guest godthedog]

the stones were a great band, but they were way more about the image than the actual music. they purposely built themselves up as badasses to sell more records by pissing off people's parents. they never really seemed sincere in their "we're the bad boys" attitude. yeah, they had dirty lyrics & mick jagger danced around like a sex-starved predator, but that's about it. the who beat them out by sheer ambition and sincerity. also:

 

they wrote better songs.

they were better musicians.

they weren't afraid to try new things.

pete townshend is smarter than all the stones put together.

they're listed in the guiness book of world records as the loudest band ever.

 

i'd be remiss if i didn't also mention the velvet underground. lou reed wrote the song that embodies what rock & roll is all about (called, conveniently enough, 'rock & roll'). they were the TRUE badasses of the 60s, and they didn't even have to try. the stones may have scared baby boomers' parents, but the velvets scared everybody. for lou reed, rock music was about being honest and dealing with personal torment. their music was more personal than anyone's. and they loved being noisy, which never hurts. the only thing that hurts them is that they were a little too avant-garde for true 'rock & roll'.

 

so...i say the who, but the velvets are a close second. the stones are in the top 5.

 

and as true rock music goes, the sex pistols are kind of a joke. they came out with one "let's piss off the world" record, which didn't really have anything to say. they were masterful about their image, but the music doesn't hold up very well. other punk bands like the clash & talking heads (yes, i consider talking heads a punk band) beat them out by talent.

[Guest Mad the Swine]

Something from godthedog about the who...

 

they wrote better songs

 

Debatable all day. Superior song writing doesn't always create something successful. Tommy and Quadrophenia are successful, but how many people know songs from the albums as well as they know Satisfaction... or even Shattered? The closest the Who can probably come to recognition is My Generation and then the Stones can offer up Jumpin Jack Flash.

 

Writing is half the struggle. Recognition is the other. Pet Sounds is one of the most musically perfect albums ever made. And it did crap on the charts.

 

they were better musicians

 

That's a given. But the Stones didn't need the superior musicianship to get their point across.

 

Musicianship is a plus when we're talking about band quality. But this thread is moreso about band recognition. So, I don't think that statement carries much weight here.

 

they weren't afraid to try new things

 

And the Stones were? Jumpin' Jack Flash was a step in another direction (supposedly - I don't much see it myself, though). And then there's Gimme Shelter.

 

The vast majority of bands try something to keep their monetary livelihoods afloat. Queen tried a bit of disco. The Beatles went hippie as did the Beach Boys. Even the Ventures changed styles to try and keep pace with the times.

 

pete townshend is smarter than all the stones put together

 

And if education is a tangible argument, all four members of Queen have degrees: Roger Taylor - biology, Freddie Mercury - art, John Deacon - electronics, and Brian May - a thesis short of a doctorate (not just the standard bachelor's degree) in physics.

 

Townshend and Jagger (or Richards) both attended Ealing Art School. But this thread ain't an argument over intelligence.

 

they're listed in the guiness book of world records as the loudest band ever

 

Whoop-di-doo. That's great.

 

Moving along, I'll nominate Elvis Presley. He kinda' got this over to the mainstream.

[Guest redbaron51]

to me i find Who's Next, and Who Are You alot better than Sticky Fingers or Exhile to Main Street.

 

and the ability to grasp the audience well and basically control them is a way how much influence they had on the people, and this is what the Who is really known for other than some crazy antics

 

the who probably changed the most of any band that i know, and usually was new. I mean they went from sort of a poppy band at first, but they became a tremendous loud and crazy live band to writing rock opera's twice using sythesizers, they did a lot of things in music that was never been done before, and they did it very well.