holy trinity of rock in USA

Does anyone else agree that Elvis, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen are the holy trinity of American Rock n Roll?

Just asking.

DS

I wouldn't include Bob Dylan in ANYTHING having to do with rock & roll. He is a folk singer.

I can certainly see Elvis...but what on earth puts Springsteen in the 'trinity' category?

My vote would be for Elvis, Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry.

Unless you can state sufficient reasoning behind the names you originally mentioned.

Apple

I love all three, but I would not include Elvis or Springsteen. I'd put Lennon, Dylan, and Young above them as far as a trinity would go.

Although I respect them, I never got into Elvis or Springsteen; I LOVE Bob Dylan though.

Until Bob Dylan records an anti-Bush album, I'm sure they will remain a trinity to you.

Not sure who the American Lennon is, but DS that is a great trio. Rock? hmmmm. Pop music maybe. Elvis kicked it off. Dylan broadened into folk. And Bruce melted the two together.

Lurking in the background - Billy Joel, The Eagles ... and we go up to Motown....the Supremes and the Temptations.

American "rock" has had a very wide variety of influence and stars. The East Coast sound, West coast, Southern Rock, Country, Motown, Memphis, etc.

In that case, I'm not gonna limit it to USA rock.

Bob Dylan and Tom Petty.

Hmmm! That's kind of hard to answer, depending on what criteria you use. I would think besides popularity/talent, that longevity, contribution to Rock music, influence/s one may have had on future music & musicians would come into play.

In my opinion, Rock is Rock and isn't exclusively American. Living through the "Britsh Invasion" of the 60's eliminates possible contenders who hit the rock world with a big bang. IMHO.

Yet, you asked for "American" Rock and it's still not easy. :p Elvis Presley for sure whether you like him or not, he took this "evil" music to the forefront (not forgetting Bill Hailey) and look how far it's come.

Like Apple said Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly were legends in their own right as well. And although I was very young when Rock started, I hear many times artists saying they were influenced by Bo Diddley, whom I know, but was maybe too young to appreciate, cause I don't know his music well.

Then again, like Mary Cas said, there's so many artist/styles to choose from, from Motown to the Surfer Sound and I'm sure many others that aren't coming to mind right now. And what about music in later years? Does that qualify: Heavy Metal, Reggae (would you consider that Rock as well)???? Thank goodness there is such a variety of music to "rock" our world.

Good topic! I like talking rock music of my generation.

TIS

Don't get me wrong, I like Springsteen, but when it comes to rock and roll, he was good, but what makes him outshine other rockers? It's all about preference, I'm not sure you can say one of them outshines the rest.

Horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible statement.

Dylan is one of the most versatile recording artists ever. Just a folk singer? Please.

My Trinity:

-Bob Dylan
-Neil Young
-John Lennon

I'm not a fan of The Boss. Elvis is good, but gets points taken off for not recording his own material.

Other Trinity possibilities would be Warren Zevon, The Rolling Stones, The Grateful Dead, Johnny Cash and The Doors to name a few.

The Doc

I dunno.....

Elvis was strictly a singer. Bruce writes some great music and, but his singing is nothing special.

Dylan has written some great songs - music and lyrics - but hardly any of it is what I'd call "Rock 'n Roll", and he can't sing at all, IMO.

And I don't know if I'd consider Springsteen and Dylan to be great musicians; Elvis certainly isn't.

All three are certainly great in their own way, but we're really comparing three different "types", so I think I need a better definition here.

I mean, it's not like a few years ago in baseball, when we talked about Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, and Nomar Garciaparra as the "Holy Trinity" of American League shortstops.

Greatest musical acts, maybe? Most influential? Most popular?

Also, if we're gonna talk about American Rock 'n Roll, Chuck Berry should be in there somewhere, as something.

Gee Don Smitty, I would have sworn that you would have picked the Dixie Chicks! :p


Don Cardi

Many people are under this illusion. Haven't you ever been moved by any of his songs?

Many times.

I find his "New Morning" album to be particularly beautiful, romantic, and moving. Not only is it one of my favorite Dylan albums, it's one of my favorites, period.

His singing on that particular album isn't bad, either, but it's the lyrics and the melodies that I really love.

In general, I usually don't care for his singing.

I think Dylan's voice perfectly suit his songs; the way he sings Sara is one of the most gutwrenching things I've ever heard.

I don't think there's such a thing as "technically" good singing, or "technically" bad singing. Sara in the hands of somebody else may well just be hideous. The same reason I think Tom Waits is a brilliant singer.

The same thing applies to filmmaking, over which we've had a debate before; if something is "technically good", then it must move you in some way in order for you to describe it so.

Well the subject at hand is not really 'good' singing vs. 'bad' singing, or whose voice is suited to particular songs.

The subject at hand is the 'Holy Trinity of Rock' in the USA.

Apple

I was talking to Plawrence, not you, you worthless wretch.

Elvis Dylan and Paul Simon.

Springsteen is an overrated blow hole.


BTW the best band in America today is far and away The Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Well the subject at hand is not really 'best band in America today'.

The subject at hand is the 'Holy Trinity of Rock' in the USA.

Dylan-Waits-Hendrix

Lennon, Petty, and Dylan for me then. So good.

Again though, aren't we talking about American artists? I don't think the fact that John Lennon lived in the Dakota makes him an American songwriter and musician. :p

How the hell did so many people leave out Hendrix? :rolleyes:

People like Waits, Petty, Zevon, and Young, while they are very good or even excellent and certainly may be included among your favorite artists, are not in the class of the Dylans, Lennons, or even Sprngsteens when we talk about the "Holy Trinity"

I'm not sure what you have to be to get included there, but whatever it is, none of those guys are it, IMO.

Well, I'd think it would involve musical talent as well as lasting legacy and influence...which is why I think that you're right in mentioning Chuck Berry, since his style was innovative and influenced people from the Beatles to present day artists. Roy Orbison, who many may not be as familiar with, like Berry, pioneered American rock and roll. Elvis Presley, say what you will about him not writing his own stuff, essentially brought rock and roll and mixed it with the black music that had previously been unacceptable for mainstream (white) audiences. And finally, as RB said, Hendrix, who was arguably the greatest American guitarist, infused rock with the heavy, guitar-laden side that evolved into a plethora of genres. Though not rock and roll, you could throw others like B.B. King, Muddy Waters, Smokey Robinson, and Thelonius Monk, all of whom defined genres.

How bout a Holy Pentagon of Rock in the USA

gives you more options

Oddly I think people are focusing on solo artists, which I was guilty of.

Tom Waits should also be noted. He's one of the most innovative solo artists, especially in the 80's with experimenting with instruments he didn't play and even inventing some.

Ironically, my favorite band. American rock is too bleak currently for me to comment on that. I guess they are, as everything else comparitively sucks. I don't know.

Radiohead, Black Label Society, Foo Fighters, Audioslave, and Red Hot Chili Peppers are great/good bands today.

And some Velvet Revolver too.

I can't disagree more. Legacy to me means bullshit and is in no way able to define a member of the "holy trinity". MY definition for a member is sheer talent. Musical and writing. Personality and media coverage have nothing to do with it.

Neil Young not being as good as Bruce Springsteen? What are you smoking, Plaw?

As for Zevon, though he and Springsteen were very good friends, I have to believe some of Zevon's talent rubbed off on him, Zevon is just too large of a genius to not have had a profound impact on Springsteen's music.

The Doc

In regards to those who think Dylan can't sing, I find myself paying attention to the lyrics while listening to Dylan more than any artist, simply because it's such a centerpiece to the songs. His voice is perfect for his lyrics, because his voice allows you to concentrate on his lyrics, and soak in the brilliance.

Desire is a beautiful album...every song is a testament to his style.

Again though, aren't we talking about American artists? I don't think the fact that John Lennon lived in the Dakota makes him an American songwriter and musician. :p [/b][/quote]Which is why I didn't include him in my first post, but then I saw people we including him, so I added him. Read it all before ya reply. Kthx.

People, here is the beauty of rock music; Your voice can sound like a dairy-goat being raped, beaten, or killed, and it doesn't matter. If you ask me, Lennon, Dylon, Cobain, and Young (to name a few) are horrible singers in the "traditional" sense. But, this isn't opera or show tunes. It's rock and roll, and what matters is the passion.

Their voices match their music, and compliment it. A few rough edges (without being a complete disaster) will only give their music character.

Again though, aren't we talking about American artists? I don't think the fact that John Lennon lived in the Dakota makes him an American songwriter and musician. :p [/b][/quote]Which is why I didn't include him in my first post, but then I saw people we including him, so I added him. Read it all before ya reply. Kthx. [/b][/quote]Two wrongs don't make a right (Doobie Brothers), so just because someone mentioned a very-British John Lennon in a thread about American musicians doesn't make it correct, nor does it mean I didn't read the thread (which I did).

BTW -

Seems like Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix should be in there somewhere.

I think this is just a hard thing to answer without considering our personal tastes/opinions, as opposed to considering whatever factors we use (influence, stamina, public appeal, talent, etc, if this is criteria to judge).

Say there is an entertainer that you just don't like, never have, and can't see how anyone considers them talented, yet the seem to fit whatever criteria you are using, should that person be considered?

For instance, say we are talking about the "Holy Trinity" of soul music. I'm probably gonna get bashed for this, but I have never liked Aretha Franklin, and would not include her on "my" list. Yet, she's been around forever, and to many is one of the best an perhaps has met some of the criteria.

In other words, does personal taste override accomplishments, influence and all the other factors we consider?

TIS

Not like Aretha Franklin?? TIS, I AM shocked!! What's up with that? Not "Think"? Not "Respect"? Wow!

Just kidding! Like you said, it's all so subjective, how can you possibly pick?

Yea, what can I say? I don't "mind""Respect" or "Natural Woman", but that's about it. If I'm driving in my car and one of her songs comes on, I find myself turning the station. :p Go figure!!!


TIS

I don't know if he should be part of the Hoy Trinity. If it was a Holy Octoty he would definitly be there, but Mr. Springsteen is far from a blow hole.

He is a important part of the fabric of American Rock and Roll and his influence is important and manifest itself everywhere. He could rest on just the acomplishment of Born to Run which is a tremendous top ten album. They don't make em or write em laike that any more. Springsteen in the seventies made Rock and Roll fun again. At a time when you had the rebbelious punks on the left and the snobbish album Oriented Rock Gods on the right. Springsteen made it fun to shout and have a good time at a show.

Next time you go to a show and the artist does more than one encore. Thank Springsteen because he set the bar for a live show so high, it made other artist work that much harder.

From 1978-1984 no live act could touch the energy level of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band

Not that I want to get into a habit of agreeing with anything Don Smitty says, but the three artists he listed are vital to the fabric of American rock music. I recall a 1998 VH-1 special that used the same phrase Smitty referenced.

Elvis was vital to the beginning of rock-n-roll in the 50's, Dylan in the 60's and 70's, and Springsteen in the 70's, 80's, and today. Each artist is flawed. Elvis didn't write a lot of his material but he had a dynamic voice and a great stage presence. Dylan and Springsteen are not the best vocalists or guitar players. However they are two of the best songwriters ever. Dylan released a number of influential albums, from Highway 61, Blood on the Tracks, Bringing It All Back Home, John Wesley Harding to name a few.

Springsteen's contributions have been equally important: Born to Run, Darkness on the Edge of Town, Nebraska, Born in the USA, and The Rising. And I would challenge that Springsteen is a better live performer, today at age 56, than 95% of his competitors in the music industry. And from 1975-1988, Springsteen was second-to-none in terms of energy, giving every show 110%, and delivering a 3 hour-plus set every night. His shows would vary greatly from night to night, incorporating classic and rare covers, along with unreleased and original material.

Are these 3 the best artists ever? Probably not. But they certainly form the nucleus of what is great about rock music.

As much as I like Springsteen, I think Robert Smith was a better lyricist in the 80's. Hell, I don't even think he's the best of the 70's.

I would have to disagree, Springsteen is an incredible song writer and his first four albums are classics. He reveals himself to his audience.

Having the pleasure of seeing both artist in their hay day. Springsteen in the early eighties and Robert Smith's version of The Cure in the mid eighties, let me tell you Mr. Smith would have a major coronary if he had half the energy that Springsteen had at a live show.

I'm not really discussing energy. I'm discussing the music. Keep in mind I'm not bashing Springsteen at all.

Ramones, Dead Kennedys and Pixies.