100 Greatest Artist of "Rock-N-Roll"

[haVoc 0]

Is there any reason why Van Halen is 40 spots ahead of the Ramones?

The Roth years alone should knock the Ramones right off the list.

 

Seriously, the Zeppelin, Doors, Van Halen, Beatles, etc., hate on this board is amazing.

[Madmartigan21 0]

I don't know what deffinition of Rock and Roll they were using. I haven't heard one Simon and Garfunkle song that is Rock and Roll at all. I wouldn't classify Madonna as a Rock and Roll artist either. James Taylor? Surely not.

If you've ever actually seen the show, they actually say the list is the 100 greatest artists of the rock and roll "era", and not actually the 100 greatest artists of rock. I believe that's the same thing with the lists for song and ablumn as well.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Is there any reason why Van Halen is 40 spots ahead of the Ramones?

The Roth years alone should knock the Ramones right off the list.

 

Seriously, the Zeppelin, Doors, Van Halen, Beatles, etc., hate on this board is amazing.

I've yet to see one person here slag the Beatles.

[MrRant 0]

The fact that Queen isn't in the top 10 is a crime.

[Nighthawk 0]

Hm... Elvis Presley gets knocked too much cause he's white. Give the devil his due. Total package, he was better than the Beatles.

[Big McLargeHuge 0]

Not writing his own tunes holds Elvis back a tad.

[HurriShane 0]

Is there any reason why Van Halen is 40 spots ahead of the Ramones?

The Roth years alone should knock the Ramones right off the list.

 

Seriously, the Zeppelin, Doors, Van Halen, Beatles, etc., hate on this board is amazing.

So, Van Halen is in the same league as the Beatles and Zeppelin? That's the first time I've ever heard, actually read, anyone mention Van Halen in the same breath as the Beatles. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

The Ramones were one of--if not the--first "punk" band; Van Halen were hardly revolutionary.

 

EDIT: And, as I often say in these type of threads, arguing about a list is stupid.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

the Ramones can be considered the first american "punk" band... but you can't deny bands like the Bullocks as one of the first punk bands to get any kind of attention, until they were eclipsed by the Sex Pistols.

[haVoc 0]

You guys are such puppets of the MTV/grunge/Nirvana era. Van Halen wasn't revolutionary? Eddie's guitar playing, his sound and style is all over the late 70's, 80's and early 90's. Anyone who thinks Van Halen, especially the Roth years, were just an other "hair band" are delusional.

 

Keep believing what MTV tells you.... Or doesn't tell you.

[tbondrage99 0]

The Ramones at 88 and Nirvana at 42??? They have got to be kidding right??

[KTID 0]

This was one funky list, methinks.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

Keep believing what MTV tells you.... Or doesn't tell you.

Whoa! You really got my number there.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Van Halen had absolutely nothing going for them other than catchiness and DLR being cute when he was young. Eddie Van Halen has never done anything that all of the other cheeseball prog soloits haven't done better. In terms of his work being "all over" the 70's, 80's, and 90's, I can't think of a single guitarist that plays like Van Halen that wasn't a totally over the top hair act. Their rhythm section also blew. If they weren't showing off in front of thousands of people, the music didn't work at all.

 

...and I actually like some Van Halen songs.

[alfdogg 0]

I also think Kiss and the Four Tops should be higher.

 

It's obvious this list wasn't based solely on Rock & Roll, considering some of the people on it.

 

EDIT: And where the FUCK is Foreigner?

 

EDIT 2: No Hall & Oates or JCM, either. That's terrific. That's a hell of a list there.