100 Most Influential Rock n' Roll Artists

недавно увидел список 100 лучших музыкантов всех времён и содрогнулся когда увидел что Битлз вторые!!!!!!! елвис их обошел !!!!! какое ваше мнение об этом и даваите сделаем наш список.
извините если ест на русском ошибке просто в России не живу давно уже да и на русском давно не писал.
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_influential.html
вот саит и список
1. Elvis Presley
2. The Beatles
3. Chuck Berry
4. Bob Dylan
5. Jimi Hendrix
6. James Brown
7. Buddy Holly
8. Little Richard
9. Fats Domino
10. The Rolling Stones
11. Led Zeppelin
12. Aretha Franklin
13. The Beach Boys
14. Pink Floyd
15. Robert Johnson
16. Ray Charles
17. Stevie Wonder
18. The Who
19. Bo Diddley
20. The Velvet Underground
21. The Sex Pistols
22. Jerry Lee Lewis
23. The Everly Brothers
24. Muddy Waters
25. Bob Marley
26. The Byrds
27. Cream
28. Elton John
29. Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention
30. Earth Wind and Fire
31. Roy Orbison
32. Johnny Cash
33. Clyde McPhatter
34. David Bowie
35. The Clash
36. The Doors
37. John Mayall's Bluesbreakers
38. Sam Cooke
39. Credence Clearwater Revival
40. Janis Joplin
41. Prince
42. Sly and The Family Stone
43. Isley Brothers
44. Neil Young
45. The Pixies
46. Bruce Springsteen
47. Simon and Garfunkel
48. Otis Redding
49. Bill Haley
50. Smokey Robinson & The Miracles
51. The Eagles
52. The Yardbirds
53. The Flying Burrito Brothers
54. Van Morrison
55. The Ramones
56. Marvin Gaye
57. Nirvana
58. Joni Mitchell
59. Queen
60. The Beastie Boys
61. Al Green
62. The Grateful Dead
63. U2
64. Black Sabbath/Ozzy
65. The Allman Brothers Band
66. J.J Cale
67. Miles Davis
68. George Clinton & The Parliament Funkadelic
69. Steely Dan
70. Billy Joel
71. Elvis Costello
72. Stevie Ray Vaughan
73. Jefferson Airplane
74. King Crimson
75. Rush
76. Chicago
77. Metallica
78. Van Halen
79. Lynyrd Skynyrd
80. Todd Rundgren
81. Kraftwerk
82. Crosby Stills Nash & Young
83. The Band
84. Fleetwood Mac
85. Deep Purple (1968-1972)
86. Traffic
87. ZZ Top
88. War
89. Pearl Jam
90. Talking Heads
91. Neil Diamond
92. Warren Zevon
93. Lou Reed
94. Genesis
95. Iron Maiden
96. Yes
97. Don McLean
98. Aerosmith
99. KISS
100. Bob Seger

Что Элвис стоит перед битлами неудивительно - они во многом находились под его влиянием. Меня больше удивили позиции Чака Берри перед Диланом и Фэтса Домино перед Стоунс. Думаю, здесь сыграла роль элементарная хронология, хотя тогда начинать надо было с Роберта Джонсона...

ну то что чак берри там меня не удивлает он один из наиболее влиятельныйх гитаристов всех времен и один из первых рок исполнителей которые писали сам себе музыку.Поскольку этот список 100 наиболее влиятельныйх исполнителей он должен быть высоко.Да и извинете за не правильный в начале перевод был не правильны великих исполнителей а влиятельныйх.

Эта страница непредставительная, в том смысле, что отражает чисто личные предпочтения ее составителя. Don McLean попал в Top 100, да еще перед Kiss? Держите меня...

Если это так - мое мироощущение музыкального мира как-то очень искажено. Ну и бог с ним. Live and let die!
e.g. То, что Элвис впереди - это точно, но Бич Бойз ускакали вперед Орбисона - не верю. Еще не верю, что Квин и Бисти бойз где-то рядом. Хотя прикольно составить для себя такой список приоритетов, и моём списке первые призовые места уже разобраны.

Bird

Если Нил Даймонд в Вашем топе ниже Лу Рида, то все у Вас нормально.

Илюха
Точно, посмотрела список - ниже.

я в этом сайте в силках людей одного нашёл писал он много интересного так я у него то и спросил должны ли битлы быть на первом месте вот его ответ.

No. I think if it's PURE musical influence it should be Chuck Berry at #1. Not only for defining the role of the guitar but for completely and forever changing the entire style of songwriting. In second place would be James Brown for popularizing one massive style (soul) and for actually inventing another (funk) that led to a third (rap, through sampling and the same rhythmic components), in addition to being the most imitated live performer ever (Mick Jagger on down to Michael Jackson are basically trying to be him on stage). Elvis and the Beatles would fall in the 3-5 slots somewhere in that regard.

But I don't think this list is based on pure musical influence and that it does - and should - take into account overall influence within music. In other words, not just the construction of the music itself but the way that music affects society, changing the entire culture, and for that there's simply no question Presley is number one.

Look at it this way - rock 'n' roll itself, which had been around for a few years before he came on the scene, was still a minor segment of music getting no more than a small share of the market, and even then the mainstream establishment tried their best to supress it, going so far as to ban it outright in many communities on radio and from being performed live, television wouldn't show it (Ed Sullivan said he'd NEVER have a rocker and Elvis specifically on his show). But when Presley hit in '56 he was SO big, SO popular, SO overwhelming that he singlehandedly made that effort fail and allowed rock 'n' roll to become the biggest single selling form of music in America within two years. It suddenly was all over radio, the live tours in 1956 broke thirty year old attendance records from New York to California and rockers faces were all over television with Presley going on Sullivan's show three times to record ratings. The mainstream capitulated because of his popularity. They simply had no choice.

First off, you focused mostly on a minor point I made, which was Presley's comeback in 1960 from the Army revived rock's obviously sagging fortunes. That is entirely true and facts bear it out - In the two years Presley was in the Army 18 of the 37 #1 Records were pure pop songs, with three others being novelty songs. The majority of those "rock" songs that were #1 hits were ballads and instrumentals, which were deemed "less offensive". During that time there were just 8 uptempo rock songs to hit to the top of the charts, and two of them were leftover recordings by Presley himself.

To say that it was coincidence - both rock's bottoming out when he was gone and its ensuing rise in popularity when he came back is utterly indefensible historically. He was the reason in both cases and you can't affect an entire INDUSTRY that way without unprecedented influence.

Furthermore, in the period you mentioned, from 1960-1963, Presley had 19 Top Twenty hits, which is more than than The Shirelles had their entire 18 year career, so to say they were "more popular" then he was during that time is flat out inaccurate. He sold far more records than anyone during those years and that information is very easy to find.

So you claim that Presley didn't save rock despite the fact that in the two years he was absent from the scene rock music had by far its lowest success since it's mainstream popularization in 1956 and after he returned that success rose to his pre-Army levels. THEN you go on to say that the Beatles however DID save rock in 1964, despite the fact that from 1961-1963 were some of rock's most fertile years and therefore didn't require saving from anything. How do you "save" something from tremendous success and creative expansion it had during that era preceeding their arrival?

But that early 60's point on my part was just one small example of his influence, not my main argument. Presley's primary influence from 1954-1958, even more specifically '56-'58, was unmatched by anyone at any time in any form of music. There is no getting around it, no debating it, no questioning it without looking clueless. He changed the entire world - from the way people acted, danced, dressed and looked, to the way popular culture impacted society, to the way the entire "leisure-time" American ecomomy was based, shifting from centering around adult buying power to teenage buying power (today nearly every pop culture item is marketed towards youth, from movies to TV to music. It wasn't before him).

Now, did the Beatles influence things in rock music and society overall? HELL YES! On my list they'd be #2 taking everything into account, and comfortably so. But you saying that without the Beatles there'd be no Byrds as one of your major points... well how about this one - without Elvis there'd be no Beatles! I think that's a little bigger of a deal.

You also say that the Beatles and Dylan encouraged others to write their own music. I know they did, but they were hardly unique in that regard. Fats Domino was writing his own rock music in 1949. Little Richard and Chuck Berry were in 1955. Buddy Holly in 1957. That's just SOME of hundreds who were doing so very successfully before Dylan and the Beatles, all of whom influenced the Beatles besides, so if you're handing out credit for the Beatles influencing others to write, you have to go further back and credit the ones before them for it too.

You saying that the Beatles have more influence on today's music is also questionable logic. Why is influence on RIGHT NOW more important than influence on the entire history of rock 'n' roll? If that's the case I'll say that the Sugar Hill Gang or Afrika Bambaataa or Run DMC is more influential in music than the Beatles are RIGHT NOW, simply because rap has more widespread popularity than Beatles-esque rock does today. That's just a fact, look at sales figures over the past year if you doubt it.

But I'm not saying that because "influence" means over ALL of rock history, not just one minute of it. Add up all the influence over the years, see what preceeded an artist and what followed in his wake in order to chart it accurately and there's your answer and that answer is pretty clear. It is not discrediting the Beatles one iota to say they finish second to Presley in influence. But it's just plain fact that Presley had more influence overall, most specifically in rock 'n' roll ITSELF being popularized which is the most important influence there can possibly be.

People don't seem to understand that rock 'n' roll was a MINOR THING before him. Less than 10% of the population knew what it was, even though it'd already been around for five years. Within five months of his first RCA single in 1956 less than 10% of the population WOULDN'T know what it was. Before him rock music sales accounted for a tiny fraction of all music purchased, five years after he came onto the scene it accounted for HALF of all music purchased. No other style in history grew that fast. Rock music became successful and allowed the Beatles and everyone else to play it in the future because of Presley's overwhelming presence which forced it into the mainstream and then to the forefront of that mainstream, that simply is undebatable.

Put it this way. Take any one artist in rock history out of the equation and things may be different. Without Chuck Berry the guitar and songwriting of rock wouldn't be the same. Without Bob Dylan the lyrics wouldn't be as wide-ranging. Without James Brown rhythm would be less important. Yes, without the Beatles there'd be a huge void in many respects, no question about it... But without Elvis Presley we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because rock 'n' roll would not have been anything more than a small, niche style that would've came and went in relatively short order.

Rock was not invented by Elvis Presley by any means, but it SUCCEEDED to the extent it did because of him. You can not be any more influential than that and there's simply no credible way to say differently. Sorry. Hope you don't think I'm rippin' on you.
Sampson

Список, на мой взгляд, надо переименовать в 100 самых популярных (или успешных) музыкантов. Так будет честней. Потому, что для меня это дико: неужели Элвис со своими простенькими песенками лучше, битлов, которые открыли не то, что новый стиль-новую эру в музыке.....Кримзоны-74е.....Дженезис-94е.....Грустно....Я понятия не имею по каким критериям отбирали эту сотку

какой ужасс!
битлз только вторые
я этого не переживу:))))
а куин ваще на 59
даже сраные иглз их обогнали
ну и что????

бред это всё

ха-ха-ха....Принс и Бисти Бойс обогнали Кинг Кримзон.

я ж говорю-бред полный
Элвис всего-то исполнитель неплохой
а Битлз....
ну и так далее

по-моему можно тему уже закрывать....

sweet А заметила сколько американских музыкантов? Нигде такого не найдёшь. Видимо какой-нибудь кавбой-патриот из Техаса составлял этот список, во время пристура аномального патриотизма.

наверно:))))))

Даааа, надо. Посмотрели, поплевались. И хватит.

Так это ж список влияния на заграничных музыкантов, но никак не на наших. У нас бы все началось (ну ладно уж) с The Beatles, а вторыми были бы Deep Purple, а третьими (scheisse) Uriah Heep.

Ник, даешь Smokie в первую тройку!