I question the sanity of Rolling Stone readers

We're seriously comparing the lyrics of the centerpiece of the greatest rock album ever recorded to the ongoing prequel to "Dungeons & Dragons" that is the Led Zeppelin catalog?

 

The Stones' influence is minimal compared to The Beatles, Zep, Dylan and, as JR mentioned, Buddy Holly.
It should be: 1. Beatles, 2. Holly, 3. Dylan, 4. Zep, 5. Elvis.

 

Robert Plant named his dog Strider.

 

Can't argue with that.

Wait a minute . . .

While you continue to mistakenly associate "hey, I like their MUSIC!!!!" with "They're Influential!!!" I think we've got our signals crossed here.

I didn't post the lyrics to "Backstreets." (Or "Racing in the Street," for that matter)
I didn't post the lyrics to "Kashmir" (which is a terribly boring song).
I didn't post the lyrics to (whatever anyone thinks is the best song on Revolver)
I didn't post the lyrics to Won't Get Fooled Again.
I didn't post the lyrics to whatever is the greatest song on whatever is acknowledged as Dylan's greatest album.

I didn't post about the lyrics to . . . well, you get the idea.

I'm waiting for you to dispute my assertion that this whole "Dungeons and DRAGONS!!!!!" thing you keep referring to is but a small handful of songs, inadmissible in court due to lack of evidence.

Witness the class of the Stones' catalog, as stated by Waylon:

'Cause all you women is low down gamblers,
Cheatin' like I don't know how,
But baby, I go crazy, there's fever in the funk house now.
This low down bitchin' got my poor feet a itchin',
You know you know the deuce is still wild.

Baby, I can't stay,
You got to roll me.
Call me the Tumb-uh-liiingg . . . Diii-iii--yuyiii---icceeee . . .

Watch out, everyone! There's fever in the funk house now!!!!!!

 

"the centerpiece of the greatest rock album ever recorded"

Who said anything about Michael Bolton's Time, Love and Tenderness?

 

Elvis influenced everybody who followed him. He's No. 1, followed by Buddy Holly, followed by the Beatles, then Dylan.

"If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been the Beatles." - John Lennon, 1965.

 

I mean, other than Dylan, nobody is comparing these guys to Yeats.

But set those "inane" lyrics to music and it's magic.

Not the kind of magic Zeppelin liked to sing about, either.

Mick Jagger would have hung it up in 1965 before he would have started making "Lord of the Rings" references.

 

Waylon ...

The Beach Boys? Please. They made one great album (Pet Sounds). Everything else they recorded is the soundtrack to a car commercial.

And Wilco isn't even the best band to include Jeff Tweedy. Uncle Tupelo (not to mention Son Volt) is far superior to Wilco.

And Velvet Underground sucks. Like Sonic Youth, they're one of those bands that people claim to love but no one really listens to.

As for the rest of you ...

I love, love, love the Stones in their prime (Beggars Banquet thru Some Girls). But everything since "Tattoo You" has been horseshit. Like Slash once said, Mick Jagger should have blown his brains out after "Some Girls."

Yeah, Led Zeppelin got a little stoner nerdy at times, but you gotta remember Robert Plant wrote the lyrics to Ramble On when he was 19 or 20 years old. And they were clearly getting bloated by the end. John Bonham probably did their legacy a favor by dying when he did. But the level of musical virtuosity of everyone in that band is undeniable.

I actually love them both equally. And I don't find a reader's poll that ranks one ahead of the other to be outrageous in the slightest.

 

First sentence of the Zeppelin bio at All Music.com:

Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues — it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) — into their sound.

 

And the fact that a lot of metal bands ended up singing about similar things kind of adds to the whole "influential" idea. God forbid a band do more than just sing about drugs and sex (with some meek attempts at social commentary thrown in, to be fair).

As soon as you're ready to prove that whole "Dungeons and Dragons" thing was more than just a couple of songs, let me know, counselor.

(and a line from their allmusic.com bio doesn't cut it. Now, post from wikipedia, and then we're talking!)

As for Tumbling Dice: the music doesn't save the lyrics. They had some great tunes in their day, but that particular one is one that just goes nowhere, and one I find rather boring.

 

Musically, Elvis wasn't that influential. He didn't really invent any styles, he was attuned to one and brought it to the masses. He deserves credit for that.
But musically, the guy could barely play guitar and pretty much finished his career singing gospel.
Culturally, though, he was huge, no doubt about it.

 

I love Elvis as well, but comparing him to anyone else on this list is apples and oranges. He was a performer, while the rest are musicians.

Elvis rarely wrote a song (and I don't think any of those he did write were hits) and wasn't really much of a guitar player.

I'm not denying Elvis any of the credit he's been given, but to compare him to Lennon/McCartney, Dylan or even Chuck Berry is a fool's errand.