TFR Greatest Artists of Rock and Roll: The Final 4!

Well we have finally reached the end of our long voyage. The final match-ups have been set. Hard fought battles have gotten us to this point. Here is who made it through:

2 The Beatles
vs.
2 Led Zeppelin

1 The Clash
vs.
2 Soundgarden

Can Soundgarden keep it up? Will The Beatles prevail? Only you can decide! First poll is up now!, and it could be the best match-up yet.

Nothin?

I'll take The Beatles over Zeppelin any day. The Beatles were original. They totally changed what was the accepted norm for popular music of the time, and not only that but they refused to stay formulaic. They constantly challenged themselves to come up with new sounds and continually experimented with the available technology of the day.

Zeppelin, on the other hand, started out just adapting old Blues' songs that most folks didn't know and trying to pass them off as their own. At least 1/3 of Zepp's 1 and 2 are just remakes of classic blues' standards. Yes they were talented, and yes they made a lot of good albums (Physical Graffiti being their most underrated), and their stretch of albums from 3 - Physical Graffiti (3, Zoso, Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffiti) is unmatched by many bands, but they just aren't in The Beatles class.

yeah, Zeppelin was an amaaaaaaaaaaazing band.. and, even though (as Keyser mentioned) there isn't an original note on their first three albums, they simply kick more ass than just about any other group i can think of... and they more than came into their own and proved that they could write music (if, only occasionally, lyrics) with Houses of the Holy and Physical Graffiti... the definition of excess, yes, but these were rock GODS..

or, perhaps, demi-gods--when compared to the band that's going to win this whole thing.. The Beatles were the kind of cosmic imbalance that Doc Brown warned us about.. I'm honestly a bit surprised that the universe didn't simply implode when the talents of John, Paul, George, and that other guy were all crammed into one recording studio.. The Beatles changed everything--and provided the world with hours and hours of brilliant music along the way.. if it weren't for them, "pop" music would be relegated solely to the worst, most pejorative definition we can think of today (Britney Spears).. The brain of John Lennon, the heart of Paul McCartney, the soul of George Harrison, and the rhythmic stylings of a drum-machine meshed together to create a (sorry for the cliche) revolution.. Pop music could suddenly be smart, silly, distant, effectual, light, brooding, obvious, or wry (and sometimes all at once).. Musical horizons were finally expanded past the borders of doo-wop and silly love songs..

okay okay, maybe the "revolution" was inevitable.. The Kinks would've come along either way and had a similar impact.. but i shudder to think of a world where our "Let it Be" and "Yesterday" were "Lola" and "Apeman".. i think it'd look a lot more like Japan


ps. we could probably come up with a solid comparison between Zeppelin's early work and the sampling controversy of modern times.. but, that's for another day

also, as a quick aside, for all those people who think punk is "hardcore"--keep in mind: that movement was a call for a return to the days of DOO-WOP.. the Beatles had (perhaps inadvertently) spawned progressive-rock for better (King Crimson, Rush, Yes) or for worse (ELP, Genesis, Yes).. and the "punks" wanted to return to the good old days of malt-shop memories and dancin' at the "hop": the 1950s..

cyclically, grunge was a Beatles-esque revolution that moved pop music away from hair-metal and synthesizers back toward real songwriting and performance (see: the Pixies, Soundgarden, and, yes, even Nirvana)

I love it when Jimmy Paige bithces about guitarists of today ripping off his style

The Clash takes on Soundgarden... I think this could get ugly. Winner to the finals to take on The Beatles!

Not as ugly as you thought Geez. Tied at 4 votes apiece as of now.

Shocking.

Come on people, I love Soundgarden as much as anyone, but really, they don't hold a candle on The Clash. Not even close.

Face it, it's not a very good lineup. Both are good, but they aren't great.

If the Clash aren't "Great", then no one is.

Come on. The Clash is basically the poor man's Ramones.

Or the other way around. The Ramones basically had three songs and just kept repeating them over and over again with different lyrics. They were three really good songs, but only three none the less.

Buscemi wrote:Come on. The Clash is basically the poor man's Ramones.

You gotta be kidding us, eh Boussh? The Clash were light years ahead of anything The Ramones ever did. As Keyser mentioned, they just kept on plugging the same couple of tunes with different lyrics, never expanding upon their original style. The Clash were brilliant in any style they performed over their life span. Anything they put their minds to they mastered.

Hmm, I guess I've got to listen to one of their albums. I've listened to their greatest hits compilation and it just didn't seem that great.

I would also put The Sex Pistols ahead of The Clash. Imagine had The Sex Pistols stayed together, not had the problems that they had and kept performing. The face of music would probably be different.

Buscemi wrote:Imagine had The Sex Pistols stayed together

the sex pistols, god love em, were about as authentic as the monkees

NSpan wrote:

Buscemi wrote:Imagine had The Sex Pistols stayed together

the sex pistols, god love em, were about as authentic as the monkees

...And not much more talented either. They were important for what they stood for, but their music was never that much to brag about. The only member of the group who could play, Glen Matlock, left the band, and so when the Pistols ended following Sid Vicious' arrest, they were not really a band at all, more just a bunch of punks with a lot of attitude, a lot of intent, but not much quality.

But weren't The Clash also "just a bunch of punks"?

A bunch of punks with talent is a step (well, quite a few steps) above 'a bunch of punks'. I love the Pistols for what they did, they really shook up the music industry and the establishment at the same time, but in terms of musical ability, they were very low down the ladder.

Ok, you all know my opinion on the Ramones, and I strongly believe that The Clash would not exist without them, but, I will fully admit that musically the Clash are better. They actually cared about perfecting their sound, rather than just their attitude. They are absolutely brilliant.

I absolutely can't believe this is tied at 7 votes. I thought Soundgarden would be hard-pressed to get one vote.

Any four of us could form a band and be as musically talented as the Pistols were. They were initially a creation of Malcolm McLaren to help him sell clothes in his shop. They made one album that was shocking for its time but nothing to write home about musically. It was all pure shock value. The Clash, on the other hand had two very talented musicians who, when they were able to collabarate, were as good as Lennon/McCartney for being able to mix lyrics with tunes. Topper and Paul formed a decent rhythm section, but The Clash were Mick Jones and Joe Strummer. Joe was a true poet, and Mick had the ability to put the perfect music to Joe's words. Listen to Sandanista from start to finish, and you'll see (hear) that npthing The Sex Pistols ever wrote compares to even one song on that album. and that no one in this competition except for maybe the Beatles and Nirvana are in their league.

But if you think they were so great, then why didn't they have the success that The Beatles and Nirvana had?

They didn't make a lot of radio friendly records, and by success, I'm assuming you mean in America?

Yes, I do.

They are a punk band. Punk is not a media friendly genre. They don't try and impress the masses. They really don't try and impress anyone. That is why they don't have much commercial success. They were just the most musically gifted of the punk bands