Which of these 60-70's bands would you consider to be the best of the age

[Flabbergasted]

Poll question: Which of these 60-70's bands would you consider to be the best of the age

[Flabbergasted]

1. The only band I think is overated is G.D.

[Kutjara]

2. The Beatles!?! Hah!

Nothing but Oasis wannabes.

[edbermac]

26. Oasis isn't even worthy to be the Beatles' roadies.

There are the Beatles and then there are Beatle wannabees who are just sucking their kneecaps.

[greendog]

3. No Dylan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNJ7d52llic&feature=related

[Whisp]

4. Aretha was a band?

[Flabbergasted]

11. You're right and same for Al Green. But they are two of my favorites musicians. nt

[Flabbergasted]

12. Dupe

[swag]

5. They're all different pigments on a very expansive palate.

Somebody wants to say that sap green or alizarin crimson is the best color?

[Whisp]

6. Standing in the Shadow of Motown.

http://www.standingintheshadowsofmotown.com/

[Whisp]

16. the Funk Brothers, pay attention now.

they were the heartbeat and staff of many motown stars, in the background, unappreciated and overlooked.

Rent the movie. Learn.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. all and more of the above

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

8. The Beatles, but The Jimi Hendrix Experience deserves mention

To me, the Jimi Hendrix Experience redefined rock and roll. To me they were the next big wave after the Beatles. His guitar sounds revolutionized the instrument, fusing rock, blues, and psychedelia. Supposedly there was a New York Times article that described the sounds of the Jimi Hendrix Experience in concert as "heavy metal falling from the sky". The first heavy metal hit tune was Purple Haze and Hendrix' guitar influenced generations of rock guitarists that came after him. And the soulful jazz influence of Mitch Mitchell's drumming helped make that unique sound of the Experience.

[Flabbergasted]

13. Your right except some of his stuff was boring other stuff mind blowing. nt

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

18. Boring? I guess it's a matter of taste - musical taste is personal

To me, almost everything Hendrix wrote was extremely interesting, especially on his first two albums and much of Electric Ladyland. I can't say that about many groups of that time period, except maybe for the Beatles, who wrote consistently strong tunes. Hendrix was not as commercial as the Beatles or the Who, it's true. I can understand why his music might not appeal to everyone, but I can't understand the label of "boring" to someone as eclectic, creative, and visionary as Hendrix. When I hear his music, it's still fresh today.

[Flabbergasted]

19. I thought his strictly blues based guitar playing singing left alot to be desired.

I know alot of people disagree with me on this but if I listen to blues there are guys I love. His stuff such as "Little Wing" and even "Star Spangled Banner" was amazing.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

23. He didn't have a pretty voice like BB King, but he was a great blues guitar player

He didn't pretend to be a great blues singer. He was a growler and he even rapped his way through tunes before rap music existed. The European version of "Red House" (Barclay Records) sounds absolutely unbelievable to me as an example of his soulful blues playing and singing (not the version in American release with echo chamber on Reprise Records). His "I Hear My Train A Comin'" which you can get on bootleg albums from his live concerts was fantastic as a blues tune. Hendrix' blues chops were very soulful and masterful. I think if he had released purely blues albums, it would have been more fair to judge him then. But since his recorded blues repertoire is so limited, and some of it (like the canned version of Red House available on "Smash Hits" in the U.S.) doesn't represent Jimi at his best, you have to rely on his live performances where he played blues and could really stretch out. I can't think of too many blues players who were better, not even Buddy Guy. And I was listening to Buddy Guy's guitar playing as one of my favorite players during the same time in the late 1960s and picking up his chops in my own playing. Hendrix spent years on the 'Chitlin Circuit' down south, backing up very famous R and B musicians before he struck out on his own. I saw Hendrix three times in concerts. In one, he picked up a red Gibson Les Paul (turned upside down of course) and just ripped the paint off the walls of the Atlanta Auditorium when he cranked into "Red House". It's true that he didn't have a great singing voice, but it perfectly matched his music, the way Mick Jagger's absolutely terrible voice sounds perfectly great given the style of the music he's singing to. Hendrix created his own sound and most rock critics I read during the period were in love with his singing voice because it fit so well with what he was doing. But for you to say that his blues guitar playing left a lot to be desired leaves me very perplexed.

But, I'm just posting about my own tastes. No disrespect intended towards yours.

[Flabbergasted]

24. I've gotten that alot. Buddy Guy is actually one of my favorites.

Tell you what I'll listen again a little more carefully.

[Flabbergasted]

20. dupe

I know alot of people disagree with me on this but if I listen to blues there are guys I love. His stuff such as "Little Wing" and even "Star Spangled Banner" was amazing.

[ghostsofgiants]

9. Velvet Underground.

[swag]

32. Seconded

[Steely_Dan]

10. My Vote Went To Pink Floyd...but...

I could have easily put the Beatles first.

There is little doubt that the Beatles changed RnR forever. I was not a Beatles fan during their hay-day. I wasn't until they broke up that I started paying attention to their work. For me, you can separate the Beatles work into two periods. The period before drugs and the period after. There is but a handful of songs prior to Dylan introducing them to pot that I think are worthy. Their work from around Rubber Soul on is worth giving attention to. My personal favorite is the White Album. The Beatles had just started to break up and the music was the perfect balance of the individual writers vs. full collaboration. Not my favorite but nevertheless important was Sgt. Peppers. Some rock critics have said that it was the most important recording of its time. Few people know that the inspiration for Sgt. Pepper came from a visit that Paul was making to the states to celebrate Brian Wilson's birthday. Brian invited Paul into the studio to hear the nearly finished album, Pet Sounds. Paul was so blown away by the sophistication and production that when he returned, he approached John and told him that they (the Beatles) had a long way to go. They began work on Sgt. Pepper.

Sorry...I'm going on and on here.

Pink Floyd was my first choice because of reasons that I sometimes think are as complex as their music. It hard to pinpoint what it is that makes Pink Floyd the great band it is...was. It is almost as if they harnessed a certain "stream of consciousness" and made sense out of it. There is always just enough depth on their work that you don't get lost, but there is always something new to discover. There is a danger in writing like Pink Floyd...a danger that you can make things so complex that the true beauty of the song is lost. PF had this ability to know when to stop at that perfect point in their writing. Their technological abilities were far ahead of their time. Welcome to the Machine, Wish You Were Here (beautifully simple), Brain Damage, Comfortably Numb...etc.etc.

Grateful Dead....Never understood the draw to GD. They were certainly an excellent band. I just never thought that they rose to the level of their fandom. There is the old joke about GD that goes like this...

What did the one hippie say to the other hippie when they ran out of pot at a Grateful Dead concert?
Man, this band sucks!

-Paige

[Flabbergasted]

15. Great post

[Bennyboy]

17. The Dead were a LIVE BAND, and unlike most on the list

were different every single time. Not just the songs but they way they were played. I saw the GD 7 night in a row one and they repeated three songs. Two sets every night.

They also used more different styles of music than most did. the GD did jazz, the blues, rock, bluegrass, Musique Concrete and any other form of music they could get their hands on. Unlike all of the others on the lsit, there was no set list..it was experimental every time, like playing without a net...Sometimes it was a trainwreck, but others it was the most incredible thing to see.

[Steely_Dan]

21. I Can Appreciate the GD on Those Points...

I think that their relationship to their fan was unmatched. Musically speaking, it is my understanding that they are as accomplished as any of the bands on the list. From your post, it sounds as if they were more "free-form" in their performance and what they played. Kinda like jazz...I'm not a fan of free-form jazz. It doesn't seem to go anywhere. I'm more for the symmetrical approach to music...you know...a beginning a middle and an end. But I can appreciate the other approach.

Always loved the twin drummer thing...very cool.

-Paige

[Bongo Prophet]

27. An interesting thing about PFloyd - their multiple phases

Most know of their Syd era, EVERYONE knows their Meddle to wall period and some even like their post Waters period.

But the Ummagumma/ObscuredBy Clouds/More/AtomHeartMother has such rich gems that even major Floyd freaks have not heard.
There is gold there worth digging for.
And a bonus is you can hear influences as they moved from phase to phase...

[Steely_Dan]

34. Absolutely agree with you!

Nice analysis.

-P

[begin_within]

28. For me, the one thing about the Beatles that is forever puzzling is...

...the fact that the Beatlemania period happened before the band put out their best songs. The songs they had already put out when all the hysteria started were OK pop songs, but nothing compared to their work starting just a year or two later. How did the fans know that this was the greatest rock band of the entire rock era, so early in their career, before Rubber Soul or even Help! came out. Why was the hysteria there, when what they had done up to that point was relatively ordinary pop stuff, at least in comparison to what they would do soon afterwards...?

[Hobarticus]

29. I've always found that fascinating too...

Their groundbreaking material was nowhere near as strong as their later records.

If they weren't so pretty, would they have bombed? Epstein really wasn't that savvy of a promoter, yet, when Beatlemania blew up.

[Steely_Dan]

33. It took on a life...

of its own.

-P

[Common Sense Party]

31. Because what we now consider "ordinary pop stuff" was, in 1964,

quite out-of-the-ordinary. I just don't think people had heard nor seen anything like them. America was still stuck in Bill Haley & The Comets and Andy Williams mode.

[otherlander]

14. The Dead.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. No Hendrix?

[Flabbergasted]

25. lol, ugh, see post 8 on down.

[Common Sense Party]

30. Beatles, but The Who are a close second. nt