Jump to content
aberdeen-music

60's Hall Of Fame


Rob

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's the toughest decade in my opinion. I love the Stone's, Dylan and the Supreme's so it's pretty neck and neck to me. Dylan's done more for actual music and is by far the best songwriter, but I'd vote in the Stone's for the fact they pretty much pioneered rock band rebellion, everybody was pretty straight-laced before they came about. Plus they were way better than the Beatles ever were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well my heart says Hendrix, but my head says the Stones... and the rest of me wonders why

A) the beach boys went in over the fucking DOORS!?!

B) U2 are in the 5 founding members? if there was any justice in this world then they'd be banned from even entering... I blame that cunt Theakston :swearing:

still the whole series has made me realise how many truly great artists there have been in the past 50 years, especially when you consider there are a lot of bands that won't have gone in because they're too underground (the ramones for example)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe the Doors aren't a nominee :moody:

they're a bit overrated The Doors ain't they?

they have a few decent songs here and there but they also recorded a lot of overlong, rambling self-indulgent drivel as well, i wouldn't say they made one consistently good album either.

they had albums that had stand-out tracks on them but i couldn't choose one album of their's where i wouldn't skip any of the tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus they were way better than the Beatles ever were.

Ba ha ha The Stones were always in the wake of the Beatles...christ they even had to get them to write their first real hit and then show them how to write their own songs. As for the bad boys The Stones just acted the part...it was a PR ploy by ex NEMS employee Loog Oldham.

It is a hard pick as all the artists had a real impact on what we have today. I'd go for Dylan or Aretha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they're a bit overrated The Doors ain't they?

they have a few decent songs here and there but they also recorded a lot of overlong' date=' rambling self-indulgent drivel as well, i wouldn't say they made one consistently good album either.

they had albums that had stand-out tracks on them but i couldn't choose one album of their's where i wouldn't skip any of the tracks.[/quote']

Ok, so you think that the Stones, the Beach Boys aren't self indulgent? I never quite understand what people like about the Stones for example. The Doors are far ahead in every aspect; musically the most innovative band of the 60s (and yes that includes the fucking beatles), and as regards self-indulgent drivel, i kinda admire the way Morrisson actually lived the "rock n' roll" lifestyle if u want to call it that, and its brilliant how the music parallels his downward spiral (check the crashing keyboards on "Not to Touch the Earth")

The Stones played shitty blues rock and Keith Richards got jailed for like a day, big wow!

But ur right how the doors dont have one album on which every song is amazing, but id struggle to name an album that does.

:gringo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok' date=' so you think that the Stones, the Beach Boys aren't self indulgent? I never quite understand what people like about the Stones for example. The Doors are far ahead in every aspect; musically the most innovative band of the 60s (and yes that includes the fucking beatles), and as regards self-indulgent drivel, i kinda admire the way Morrisson actually lived the "rock n' roll" lifestyle if u want to call it that, and its brilliant how the music parallels his downward spiral (check the crashing keyboards on "Not to Touch the Earth")

The Stones played shitty blues rock and Keith Richards got jailed for like a day, big wow!

But ur right how the doors dont have one album on which every song is amazing, but [b']id struggle to name an album that does.

:gringo:

its called 'pet sounds'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Morrison was no more self indulgent than Lennon (imo). in fact a lot of Lennon's later "stunts" seem to be a bit morrisonesque now that I think about it.

but it's still gotta be Jimmy, although now I think about it, James Brown did invent one genre and was responsible for the creation of the most popular/influential genre of recent times... he should definately be in there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Doors are far ahead in every aspect; musically the most innovative band of the 60s (and yes that includes the fucking beatles)' date=' and as regards self-indulgent drivel, i kinda admire the way Morrisson actually lived the "rock n' roll" lifestyle if u want to call it that, and its brilliant how the music parallels his downward spiral (check the crashing keyboards on "Not to Touch the Earth")[/quote']

i don't think that was his music conveying his downward spiral, i think it was the sound of a drunk idiot hippy collapsing into his own self-indulgence, nothing more nothing less, these are useless myths masquerading as "rock n roll history", its disgusting, its cheap and its tawdry, i wish kids like yourself would stop buying into this trashy paperback story of a drunk

i just think its hilarious how people will believe anything they read about people, i couldn't care less about how many bottles of whiskey or how many lines of cocaine he could snort off Nico's tits and how this drunken and drug-fuelled stumblings reflected through some convoluted keyboard wailings in "Not To Touch The Earth", i don't think they deserve the accolades and plaudits some lazy rock journalist tosspots who love some flashy rockstar hero image to wax lyrical about it by writing some wanky platitudes comparing his words to William Blake or W.B Yeats or James Joyce or whoever and saying "oooooooh he was more than merely a singer, he was a poet", bollocks to it all, its just trash

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think that was his music conveying his downward spiral' date=' i think it was the sound of a drunk idiot hippy collapsing into his own self-indulgence, nothing more nothing less, these are useless myths masquerading as "rock n roll history", its disgusting, its cheap and its tawdry, i wish kids like yourself would stop buying into this trashy paperback story of a drunk

i just think its hilarious how people will believe anything they read about people, i couldn't care less about how many bottles of whiskey or how many lines of cocaine he could snort off Nico's tits and how this drunken and drug-fuelled stumblings reflected through some convoluted keyboard wailings in "Not To Touch The Earth", i don't think they deserve the accolades and plaudits some lazy rock journalist tosspots who love some flashy rockstar hero image to wax lyrical about it by writing some wanky platitudes comparing his words to William Blake or W.B Yeats or James Joyce or whoever and saying "oooooooh he was more than merely a singer, he was a poet", bollocks to it all, its just trash[/quote']

ok, who does deserve that sort of status? watch the live footage, regardless of wether he was pissed or not he was still an amazing showman. as for your comment about him being a dirty drunk, well if we discredited every drunk/drug addict rockstar then we'd have very few left wouldn't we? and they'd be boring as fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...