( rolling up a newspaper and swatting you on the nose while saying bad for that bad hump )Eagles had too many groupies to be a serious band, my friends!Popular sure but most influential?
Pink Floyd to me influence more bands than the Beatles in my opinion.
As for music we sing to I still believe the Eagles became that band...
Just my two cents on it...
They were just a barbershop quartet with a new gimmick that suckered teenage girls into parting with some of their allowances to buy their records. They made a lot of money at it, so they're revered and worshipped because of that, and teenage boys wanted to mimmick them, or at least the money they made.Never cared for them.
It does sound amazing for a live performance and first appearnace in the US. The set is arranged so that we can't see their amps and stuff. The other thing I notice is they start out simple with repetition and they harmonize their songs well. The reaction of the audience is something we do not see today. At least for me. I'm too old to be going to some new band I just heard about.They had the biggest overall influence on the music industry so you could say they were the best band ever. In 50's and 60's America, rock n roll music was a 'passing fad', but after that appearance on the Ed Sullivan show it exploded - every neighborhood had 3 garage bands, guitar and other musical instrument sales skyrocketed.... the culture changed ( good and bad ). They set the stage for every successful rock band that followed them.
I was living in NYC when John Lennon was killed and millions of people flocked to the memorial all that week around Central Park - Beatles music everywhere - it was insane.
Agree with all except the last; late in the 60's decade we get Hendrix and some of the more complex music aimed at niches that were buying the new high quality stereo gear that was getting cheap enough for college kids to afford then. The Stones put out a huge pile of material, most of it crap but enough to still have a lot of 'good' stuff compared to to other bands. They also tend to suck live, which is why I would never pay to seem them on a tour. I paid to see Hendrix and Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, the latter several times, and always felt I got my money's worth; not the case with many bands of that era, who weren't good enough to sound even close to their records, and it's doubtful many of them even played on their studio recordings.Here's one take. Generally, if you listen to the top songs of the decade, then it's not a good representation. Most of the #1 songs you have heard, but they all aren't that good. For some reason, the were popular and made money to reach the Billboard #1 ranking, you know pop songs. What really made the songs of the decade were lesser songs from the better bands and individual musicians. It could've been a one hit wonder. The Beatles though were really good from the get go. Same with the Stones.