What is the most influential rock album of each decade?

Let's be real here....If you are going "influential", let's go influential for everything that followed it, not just some relative few. It's gotta be Meet The Beatles....or Rubber Soul...or Revolver...or Sgt Peppers........or perhaps Are You Experienced?

I don't think we're contesting that, but back in the `60s, I think a grand total of about five people bought their records.

The Beatles mostly rode the zeitgeist, whereas VU were behind the curve.

this is also total bullshit.

OK, poorly worded, poorly thought out thread! You can be original and not be influential, and you can be influential with minimum originality - points taken. The Beatles were influential, but considering the extent of the Beatles phenomenon, perhaps not as much as one might expect. As for VU, the success-to-influence ratio is much, much higher. If that makes any sense. Probably doesn't.

That combines sales of the album in vinyl, tape, 8 track and CD (including every re-release and version)?

its all arbitrary anyways. these are the ones i like right now.

A search for the VU yielded no results.

Was there a thread on this? (Or were you referring to arguments made elsewhere?)

70s - either never mind the bollocks or the first ramones album

80s - thriller or straight outta compton

90s - it seems to soon to even guess. maybe nevermind. maybe not.

err...no it doesn't.

I can't see this line of reasoning. Seems like at least as early as Revolver, if not Rubber Soul, the album-as-art-form was a important and influential concept, not only since, but also within the decade. Am I just taking some bait here?

'60s is tough. You'd have to say that the first few Beatles albums are influential, but you could say the same thing about the first few Stones albums. And the Beach Boys too. In retrospect I'd pick something by James Brown, or maybe even a Stax single or two, or for that matter Motown, or for that matter something soul, or for that matter something bubblegum, but albums weren't so important in those genres I don't believe. Or for that matter the first Stooges album which I don't particularly listen to all that much.

'70s, well, Chuck E. probably has a point when he mentions the Eagles, they certainly have had more influence on what's popular today esp. in the Nashville vein, than just about anyone else. I would say "Exile on Main St" is pretty big influence on southern rock and the Black Crowes and all that stuff. But sure, Black Sabbath and Led Zep and them guys are influential too. And then later in the decade, Chic, early disco? The Detroit Emeralds?

'80s, wouldn't it be an early rap album, something by Run DMC or Public Enemy or someone? Or perhaps Paul's Boutique? Or Prince? What's the first big synclavier album?

'90s I don't want to say Nirvana or Pavement or any of those. Green Day? Were they in the '90s? What about the people who produced people like Janet Jackson? Or Mutt Lange? Or "Pop That Coochie" which seems fairly influential? It would seem to boil down to some producer and not to an artist in that decade?

So obviously I have no idea. The albums I like from each decade are probably somewhat influential on someone, the Zombies and Love and Serge Gainsbourg and Moby Grape and Gilberto Gil influenced the Moody Blues and Big Star and many others; George Harrison seems a big influence on Al Stewart. But I think it's all incremental, and I don't think Wilco has influenced anyone, at least not to the good. Sgt. Pepper was influential for a few years, but in the long run James Brown or Kraftwerk or even Can is probably more influential, and of course the beloved Velvet Underground is in there too.

but, like james brown, i think their influence came about single by single, rather than album by album. run-dmc had influential early rap albums, surely. but the sugarhill gang single was probably more influential than the run-dmc albums. so where does that leave you?

(And maybe the Everly Brothers, who invented soft rock.)

they get points for partially inventing the beatles too. on a similar tip, how about buddy holly and the crickets, who maybe invented the self-contained rock band. and also helped invent the beatles.

And Southern Rock existed before *Exile on Main Street,* and never sounded much like it, near as I can tell. Neither do the Black Crowes, actually. (Though I forget what they sound like.)

1950s - chuck berry - is on top
1960s - jimi hendrix - are you experienced
1970s - led zeppelin - physical graffiti
1980s - not sure about this but maybe a u2 album
1990s - nirvana - nevermind or maybe radiohead's the bends

i know people are saying NWA and PE but the post said 'rock'.

burning.

when PE came out with their first two albums, in the beginning, rock critics and more so, rock audiences, didnt really give a shit about PE. so now, just because the rock press has re-labeled them a rock n roll band over the years to make their readers more comfortable with PE, theyre a rock band? something is wrong with that.

the word rock has virtually no meaning if PE are thought of as a 'rock' band.

yep, they do.

if youre going to suddenly say MOP and PE and NWA all make rock now, then screwball, necro, non phixion, run dmc, ll cool j circa 'radio'... they all make rock music too.

by your logic, U2 and nirvana make hip hop.

fiddys: Elvis - sun sessions
60s: beatles - revolver (tomorrow never knows ALONE invented dance music)
70s: the fourth zeppelin album
80s: pixies - doolittle (probably the most influential band ever, I'm sorry to say)
90s: radiohead. definitely radiohead. bends or okc. take your pick.
00s: i don't know yet. maybe streets - opm. you can hear that album in a lot of grime and dizzee rascal and shit.

As far as southern rock goes--well, the Allman Brothers were around in the late '60s and early '70s, but Skynyrd and Wet Willie and those guys, when was that? And wasn't Skynyrd influenced by the British guys imitating blues? The Allmans seem somewhat anomolous in the realm of southern rock, to me at least. And again, I hear a lot of that "modalism" in the Allman Brothers. And, yeah, the Black Crowes sound like "Exile" and the Faces, and those sub-blues bands like Free and Savoy Brown. Really, I'd almost say that Aerosmtih were more influential than the Stones.

Whether it's "rock" or not and whether Chrisgau or Eddy say it is or isn't is irrelevant to me. It's been irrelevant since the '80s, hasn't it? Rock music always was a bit of a dead end and it seems to me we realized that long ago. U2 is a great example of that dead end, in my opinion. So much less interesting than Public Enemy or, name it. The Pixies? Well, another rock band and I guess a pretty good one, and influential, but on whom? They've meant very little to me. It seems to me that the idea of the rock album as influential entity is tied into the cult of personality to begin with, and the idea of the integrated workofart rock album really begins with "Revolver" and "Pet Sounds" and "Pepper" and not much before, Dave Dudley and original B-way cast albums notwithstanding, because weren't there always novelty-esque albums, Doug Clark and His Hot Nuts and Dave Brubeck On Kampus? How "influential" were they?

Seems to me the really influential things are the simplest, at least up until the '70s. So Bill Doggett and James Brown and maybe even "The Sidewinder" and that kinda thing, and "Green Onions" are far more truly influential in terms of what musicians gleaned than even the Beatles or the Stones or whoever. I'm truly not trying to be perverse or intentionally reductionist, it just seems like there's a lot of overlay of fairly superflous elements in any discussion of "influence" and so...

How so?

"I'm not so sure about the whole Ravi Shankar influence on the Byrds either, that seems like a classic canard to me...The supposed raga stuff was just goop added to the basic song structures that were derived from Goffin and King, Nashville tunesmiths, show tunes, r&b, blues, and so forth."

Well, sure, a lot of times, "raga"-like elements were just in particular sections of songs. But psychedelic and garage bands did a lot of modal jamming, too--sometimes whole tracks. A well-known example is the Butterfield Blues Band's "East/West." On the whole, I do believe that garage/psych bands were more influenced by Indian music than '50s modal jazz.

And actually, I was saying that the Byrds might have been an exception. The guitar parts in "Eight Miles High"--which are modal jamming over an E minor drone--were supposedly Coltrane-influenced. And Coltrane, of course, was a former member of Miles' group and a modal player at times on his own, as well.

the rock/not rock thing doesnt have to be a dead end. it can be good to rethink what constitutes a certain genre and what doesnt and why etc. i have no problem saying PE were influenced by rock artists, but to call them a rock band doesnt seem right to me.

oddly, i found this thread on another site about 'hiphopist/rockist' thinking which i thought was quite amusing.

#7, see Mojos ratings of The Roots and Common albums
Posted by The Damaja on Jun-01-04 at 04:14 PM
In response to message #5

they like Phrenology (well, I haven't actually heard Phrenology) and Electric Circus best because they are the most musically advanced. EC contains original composition, real instruments, motifs independent of loops, singing and chorus melodies... of course it's better than Resurrection! I think Illadelph Halflife got two stars out of five, and Phrenology got 5/5. Also they no doubt enjoyed that EC had lots of rock riffs.
I'd say the most basic thing is how what rock fans call the best hiphop album/artist is not what rap fans think. They are thinking on different terms. But what's wrong with that? Afterall, they're rock critics/fans because they like rock the most.

Real elitism comes in when people start making assumptions about the audience of the genre. All classical music fans are posh people; all hiphop fans are musical phillistines; etc.

easiest way to spot rockist thought.
Posted by HotThyng76 on Jun-01-04 at 04:20 PM
In response to message #5

check out their lists, they'll be som'n like this:
Best/Most-Important Artists of All Time will include:

Elvis
Beatles
Dylan
Stones
Zeppelin
Hendrix
Aretha Franklin or Stevie Wonder or Ray Charles or James Brown(always thrown in for good measure to show how 'broad' the journalist's taste is)
Ramones or Clash or Sex Pistols (a nod to punk, but always only a nod)
Muddy Waters or Bo Diddley (to prove the journalist knows about 'roots')
Public Enemy or NWA or Eminem (a nod to hip-hop, but always only a nod)

Best/Most Important Albums of all time will include:

Sgt Pepper's (prevailing thought has moved this 1 from #1 to about #6 or #7)
Revolver (it's cooler to think of Revolver as the quintessential Beatles album)
Exile On Main St
Blonde on Blonde OR Highway 61 Revisited OR Nashville Skyline (i don't pay enough attention to know which but 1 of Dylan's records)
Pet Sounds
Zeppelin I or IV
I've Never Loved A Man The Way I Love You (again, to prove a point)
A Nation of Millions OR Str8 Outta Compton OR The Chronic OR The Marshall Mathers LP/The Eminem Show (a nod...)

...all of this would be fine if the journalist/publication in question was upfront about their rock bias, but they often claim to cover _all_ music (see: "Rolling Stone").

it might be hard for some rock fans to imagine that rock didnt mean shit to everyone living in the western world, but gasp, its true!

Agreed but closeness can exaggerate small differences. I suspect that some of the gulfs we think we see between sub-genres of what is all basically popular music in the rock tradition will look absurd from a historical perspective. Classical buffs sometimes seem to hear less distance between Mozart and Glass than we do between Britney and The Flaming Lips, and I suspect posterity will find that astonishing (and uber-geeky, of course).

-- scott seward (skotro...), May 22nd, 2003 3:37 PM.

the point is that led zep were not a funk band, even though they did have one or two songs that were obviously influenced by 70s funk.

so??? why does this bother you so much? i still don't understand that at all; this idea that "every band has only one genre, and that genre is whatever one VH-1 told me they belong in, due primarily to their shirts and haircuts" is literalist horseshit for anal-compulsive teacher's pets who have sticks up their butts and don't want to actually *listen* to anything and challenge what they've been taught. which, sorry, happens to be your fucking JOB if you're writing about music. led zeppelin DO belong in funk and dance categories (as well as the rock and metal and rennaisance faire folk and prog and blues categories, etc. - maybe even in the reggae category if you count "d'yer maker" and latin category if you count "fool in the rain") (and they had WAY more than two dance or funk songs, by the way.)

RFI : Dub metal

well, what i meant is that i wouldnt include them as a BAND in the 'funk canon', as it were. i have no problem accepting that a few of their songs actively drew on funk rhythms as their basis. although just because they were funky, that doesnt mean they made 'funk'.

"i still don't understand that at all; this idea that "every band has only one genre, and that genre is whatever one VH-1 told me they belong in, due primarily to their shirts and haircuts" is literalist horseshit for anal-compulsive teacher's pets who have sticks up their butts and don't want to actually *listen* to anything and challenge what they've been taught."

ive never subscribed to anything VH1 have told me, mainly because ive never watched the channel in my life. i do need to get a satellite that receives US TV though. i listen to everything intently and try to challenge what im taught all the time. do you challenge what you're taught chuck?

"which, sorry, happens to be your fucking JOB if you're writing about music. led zeppelin DO belong in funk and dance categories (as well as the rock and metal and rennaisance faire folk and prog and blues categories, etc. - maybe even in the reggae category if you count "d'yer maker" and latin category if you count "fool in the rain") (and they had WAY more than two dance or funk songs, by the way.)"

they're hardly the only band to traverse all those genre lines. funkadelic for example, who are generally, perhaps misuidedly, thought of only as a funk band, worked in as many, if not more, different forms than led zeppelin. they could quite easily belong in soul, funk, rock, reggae, psychedelic, country, gospel, doo-wop, folk, disco, god knows many classifications. big deal.

Maggot Brain, #22
Standing On the Verge Of Getting It On, #40
Funkadelic, #46
Osmium (actually by Parliament, who cares), #99
Cosmic Slip, #116
Hardcore Jollies, #188
Free Your Mind...and Your As Will Follow, #229

but one chart isnt going to change my mind. but thank you for bringing it to my attention.

http://www.rockcritics.com/ch_eddy_int.intro.html

I hate Chuck Eddy because he lists Funkadelic's Cosmic Slop album in his book, Stairway to Hell: The 500 Best Heavy Metal Albums in the Universe, but does not list Iron Maiden's The Number of the Beast (or anything at all by Iron Maiden) in his book.

im not even sure, in spite of the metally solos and dramatic, operatic vocals, if all that much of funkadelic could be seen as metal.

But wait, if ALL their songs have to sound metal for them to be a metal band, then Funkadelic are not a funk band, either! Because they definitely have a few songs that are not remotely funky, right?

the reason i asked about the metal quotient/criteria was because hard, heavy rock, i can understand, but heavy metal in funkadelic is something, live shows aside, i never really saw too much of in their music. but if led zep are generally thought of as proto-metal, i suppose funkadelic qualify as well.