01-31-2016, 02:08 PM
(01-31-2016, 10:59 AM)xxlt Wrote: I missed the Amy Lee mention - thanks.I realize Orbison was more of a rockabilly performer and was mostly known for his crooner songs in the "rock" realm.
Orbison was there at the birth of Rock - to say he is not Rock is like saying Elvis is not Rock. Yes, the genre has expanded and changed since those men helped forge it, but unquestionably both were rock artists. Saying they are not is like pointing to the country music singers of today and saying, "See, Johnny Cash wasn't really country."
Totally agree Young and Lowe are taste choices - but I would argue Mercury is too. Many people call him the greatest - I call him different and talented but far from the best for my taste. I also am not a huge Joplin fan, but she is number one for many older fans. Ronstadt had pipes and was just a hit machine mid 1970's. I think you were a little hard on Slick - well maybe not - and I was surprised nobody mentioned Benatar, Wilson, (or Nicks) before now. Good stuff...
The media likes to put him in there(because they don't know what to label him) but he really didn't rock per se.
Unlike Elvis who crooned and rocked.
Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard were straight up rockers. They didn't even need guitars to make them become the genre.
None of those mentioned would be doubted of that.
Those could be in the comparison of Johnny Cash.
Roy Orbison... not so much.
We can agree to disagree. You can find media that puts him in the Rock category.
To most everyday listeners they wouldn't even put him near it.
Just ask someone's opinion that lived in the era.
That might give you a better answer than mine.
When it's all said and done. The man was a great singer with awesome range and emotion.
No one can deny that.