I question the sanity of Rolling Stone readers

Poll from this week:

"Which artists or groups are the most influential in the history of rock & roll?"

The Beatles: 67 percent
Bob Dylan: 35 percent
Led Zeppelin: 26 percent
Elvis Presley: 22 percent
The Rolling Stones: 19 percent

Led Zeppelin above the Stones? Not on their best day.

Above Elvis?!?! Please.

We were all in seventh grade once and listened to Zep and the Doors and thought they invented music. Then we moved on.

 

What?? No votes for Radiohead? Or Yo La Tengo??

Oh, sorry, this is a poll of Rolling Stone READERS.

 

The Zep mention is kinda amusing when you figure RS ripped the band every chance they got. One of the first issues of RS I got with my subscription (going on 30+ years now) had Charles M. Young's review if In Thorugh The Out Door. He hated it.

Speaking of which, I was kind of pumped to see RS would be debuting a new website with an archive featuring every issue of the mag - in its entirety. But I'll be damned if I can figure out how to sign up for it. As a subscriber I believe it is free, but Christ they make it difficult to access this.

Anyone else seen this?

 

Led Zeppelin is much, much better than the Stones. Keith Richards couldn't hold Jimmy Page's jock. And Page, Bonham and Jones are better musicians than any group the Stones have ever had.

But given the direction of RS in recent years, I'm surprised the Black-Eyed Peas, Lady Gaga and the Jonas Brothers weren't considered more influential.

 

Please.

 

The question is "Most influential"

Buddy Holly should be near the top of the list.

 

Well, they at least nailed it with the Beatles.

I could some variance between the rest, but I'm fine with it. Especially if you note the work Robert Plant has done post-Zep, most notably with Alison Kraus. Some of that is just fantastic.

Problem with the Rolling Stones is they have been releasing the same album for roughly the last 25 years.

 

Fine analysis.

Even if you think the Stones are a better band, you're fooling yourself if you believe they are a better group of musicians.

 

Here is a partial list of bands better than Led Zeppelin:

The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
U2
The Beach Boys
Lynyrd Skynyrd
AC/DC
The Who
Pearl Jam
Nirvana
The Grateful Dead
Fleetwood Mac
Cream
Boston
The Clash
The Ramones
The Velvet Underground
Van Halen
Metallica
The Allman Brothers
Guns 'N' Roses
Creedence Clearwater Revival
R.E.M.
The Beastie Boys
Wilco

Now, I grant you that it is a list of "most influential," and Led Zeppelin would have to go on the list ahead of a few of the acts I listed. But you said "better."

 

I'd say Charlie Watts is better. I'd say Jagger and Plant as a vocalist is a toss-up, but Jagger probably gets the edge because of the "it" factor. I'd say that Keith Richards may not be better than Page at straight musicianship, but Ron Wood is. So was Mick Taylor.

On no planet is Led Zeppelin "better" than the Rolling Stones because Jimmy Page can fit more notes into a solo than Keith Richards. The idea that Led Zeppelin is better or more influential than the Stones is pure lunacy on its face. Laughable.

 

I recently bought a subscription just for the political articles and Matt Taibbi. Their coverage of music is embarrassing at best. The latest issue featured the Black Eyed Peas and how they will save rock. I mean, c'mon guys. :

 

Along with Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga.

Best quote in the issue was from Russell Brand: "Stop letting children decide which musical acts are big."