So I'm sure that some of you out there in Nitpicker land are familiar with the NCAA Basketball tournaments and their formats. 65 teams play in a single-elimination tournament to determine the national championship. Well, I was thinking... what if we did the same thing with music?

Specifically, rock music. What if we made a field of the best 64 (no play-in games here) rock bands? What would it look like? I first thought, naturally, about the top seeds. Who would get a number one seed in this tournament? Well the answers I came up with were: The Beatles, U2, Nirvana, and... and... uhhhhh...

And that's where I got stuck. I couldn't think of another number one seed! There would be no shortage of contenders: The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, but I couldn't make a clear choice as to the remaining number one. So, I'm turning to you all. Who should go in this tournament? Here are the guidelines.

1) No single artists! Yes, I know people like Elvis get slighted this way, but if we let all the important solo artists in the bracket, we'd never be able to pick a field. I think a solo artist bracket would be another interesting discussion, but not here.

2) No one-hit wonders. So, just say "no" to the Strawberry Alarm Clock.

3) All rock sub-genres can be considered. You'll notice that Nirvana has a top seed here, mostly for turning the rock world upside-down and launching the grunge movement. If it fits in the rock genre, it can work.

So! Have at it! I don't pretend to think that this will be in any way easy or orderly, but right now, I think we should look at two things:

1) Who's that last #1 seed?
2) Who else should be in here?

So post your band suggestions, along with what seed you think they should get, and let the rumble begin!

Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band.

Fine, but what seed? I couldn't see them as a very high seed; maybe a seven or an eight.

Oh, I'd rate the Stones higher than Nirvana.

How about the Doors? or The Who? The Moody Blues?

How 'bout Yes or Rush? The Guess Who? Blue Oyster Cult? And even though I'm not a fan, what about Pearl Jam? I'd have no clue where to rank any of these at this point...Should we come up with all 64 bands first?

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention Dire Straights.

All good suggestions. I think it would help to get 64 bands gathered first, now that I think about it. To the budding list I would add The Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Kinks, The Beach Boys, Simon and Garfunkel, Aerosmith, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Three Dog Night, Radiohead, Fleetwood Mac, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Allman Brothers... this is going to be hard.

And ScottN, the reason Nirvana ranks higher than the Stones is because they were the generators of a genuine musical revolution. Now, I like the Stones much more than I like Nirvana, but the Stones were never more than second best. The only thing they have on the Beatles is longevity.

Good line of thinking, Sparrow47. For anybody to be included on this list they are going to have to possess a combination of "significance" and "quality". Popularity would rate less importantly with me.

Along those lines I would suggest the following:
Husker Du over Nirvana (although I would also include Nirvana on the list-they were a significant band although they were only just starting to find their sound when Cobain killed himself. They took the blueprint from Huskers, though, as did a heck of a lot of other bands)

Ramones- before them the musical landscape was one way, after them it was another. Monstrously influential even though they never really grew much beyond their niche. Should be a top fiver.

Velvet Underground- One of the most famous quotes about rock music came from Brian Eno and I'll paraphrase because it bears repeating: not many people bought that first Velvet Underground album, but everyone who did started a band.

The Byrds- their take on American folk-rock not only had an impact on the bands of their own generation but on the Alt-Country music that was to come.

On the bubble(?)- REM, Stooges, MC5, Clash...I think they all deserve a place

And I'm sure that Benn will bring up a certain band from Long Island...

The Sex Pistols - They *INVENTED* Punk
X - also a punk pioneer
The Clash - definitely. Early New Wave.

Would the Steve Miller Band qualify?
Others, in no order: Kiss, Boston, The Doobie Brothers, The Eagles, Bad Company...
We could really overload this list!

Excellent suggestions so far, even the ones I haven't heard of (which is going to be a lot of the newer ones). The Sex Pistols and The Ramones are definitely in.

Husker Du falls into the "huh?" category, which means I'll be taking a trip to www.allmusic.com (for some reason I can't get a hyperlink working), which is a great resource for anyone interested in music. Okay, plug aside, I'll be looking up both Husker Du and MC5.

I don't think Bad Company would make it (very brief span of holding the music world's attention) but I would also throw out AC/DC, Metallica, and even though they probably wouldn't make it, just for the hell of it, The Traveling Wilburys!

KISS -- essentially created glam-rock.
Black Sabbath

You know how the NCAA tournament has four divisions roughly corresponding to North, South, East and West? Well, maybe we could divide the four groups of sixteen into genres like basic old-style rock, metal, progressive and folk (just a suggestion of genres). The problem with this is that there are so many of the best bands straddle so many different genres.

I've thought of that, but I'm unsure that there's an adequate way of division. Also, in the NCAA's, there's sometimes little similarity between a team's geographic location and where it plays (see: Cal in the East division). We could do something like this later, but for now, we need to figure out 64 teams.

Just a point of clarification: the Sex Pistols did not really "invent" Punk Rock (that distinction belongs to the Ramones), although they did give the music a sharper focus and direction, and provided the fertile ground necessary for the movement to take root in England. Bullocks is indeed a landmark album, one of the best ever recorded, but (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the Pistols probably weren't around long enough to lay claim to the status as one of the greatest bands ever; you could make a legit case either way.

The Stooges and MC5 were the progenitors of a harsh and abrasive brand of raw-energy American rock and roll from the early 70's that later became known as "proto-punk" and a lot of their sound and material was "borrowed" by the late 70's English punk bands- particularly The Damned- and they were generally regarded as being "ahead of their time".

Who's considered the prototype Heavy-Metal band?
Ditto for New Wave?

I believe that Nirvana is considered the prototype Grunge band (note: I Could Be Wrong™).

Also, do the B-52s belong on this list somewhere?

The Sex Pistols are an interesting case. They were really only around for two years, yet they had a profound impact on not only the sound but the buisness of music. They could be considered "On the Bubble." I would also put Hüsker Dü in this group, as they were also around for a shorter period of time.

Here's a list I came up with. I arranged mine in four classic divisions, although some certain borderline bands were put in one division when they really belonged in another just to even things out. I think overall I came up with 64 solid and significant bands, even though not everyone would agree with all my choices (at least the top 4 in each division I stand by staunchly however). I weighed the list more to general popularity than my own personal leanings (for instance I would have had the Stones above the Beatles, for example). Also, to get around the solo artists ban, I made up an "NIT" of solo artists.


CLASSIC CLASSIC ROCK DIVISION

1. The Beatles
2. The Rolling Stones
3. The Who
4. The Monkees
5. Credence Clearwater Revival
6. Crosby, Stills, Nash (and sometimes Young)
7. The Grateful Dead
8. The Beach Boys
9. The Byrds
10. The Small Faces
11. Free
12. Cream
13. Jefferson Airplane/Starship
14. The Kinks
15. Steppenwolf
16. The Doobie Brothers

CLASSIC HARD ROCK DIVISION

1. Led Zeppelin
2. Deep Purple
3. Uriah Heep
4. Black Sabbath
5. Alice Cooper
6. Blue Oyster Cult
7. Rush
8. Grand Funk Railroad
9. Humble Pie
10. Mountain
11. The MC5
12. Judas Priest
13. Iron Maiden
14. AC/DC
15. Kiss
16. Van Halen

CLASSIC PROGRESSIVE DIVISION

1. Pink Floyd
2. The Moody Blues
3. Yes
4. The Doors
5. Kansas
6. Electric Light Orchestra
7. Emerson, Lake and Palmer
8. Jethro Tull
9. Nektar
10. Iron Butterfly
11. Queen
12. Procul Harum
13. King Crimson
14. Genesis
15. Hot Tuna
16. Gentle Giant

CLASSIC AOR/FM-ORIENTED DIVISION

1. Eagles
2. Journey
3. Bad Company
4. Asia
5. Styx
6. Wings
7. Lynrd Skynrd
8. Fleetwood Mac
9. T. Rex
10. Sweet
11. Foreigner
12. Bread
13. America
14. Aerosmith
15. Boston
16. REO Speedwagon

NIT (solo artists):

1. Elvis Presley
2. Bruce Springsteen
3. Neil Young
4. James Taylor
5. Simon and Garfunkel
6. Billy Joel
7. Elton John
8. Jimi Hendrix
9. Bob Dylan
10. Eric Clapton
11. Jim Croce
12. Warren Zevon
13. Peter Frampton
14. John Denver
15. Bob Seger
16. Jackson Browne

Keep in mind that this is just something I sat down and came up with in about an hour, so if I have to refine it, it would be probably be different (though not vastly so).

Springsteen isn't a solo artist (at least not for the first 15 years or so), They performed as "Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band".

Where's the punk?
Where's David Bowie in the NIT?
Where's the Kinks or the Clash?

The Kinks are there. David Bowie just missed the final cut. As for punk, I personally consider it one of the death knells of popular music (although nowhere near as bad as rap), so I didn't bother with it.

I'm still kind of weighing what I'd like to suggest. In the meantime, I do have a comment to make to Todd - You ranked the Monkees at Number 4!? I love The Monkees. They're my third favorite musical act. But they do not belong on this list. I deduct points because they not only didn't play on the first two albums (well, Peter plays on "Papa Gene's Blues" [Mike might also be on it], but that's it.)(much less have a say in determining what songs were recorded in their name), but they were never truly a "band." \i
{The Monkees' Headquarters} and Justus are the only two albums where Micky, Michael, Davy and Peter perform as an actual band. On the others, they each essentially assembled their own sets of studio musicians to record their own songs. In all honestly, The Monkees were four solo artists recording under one banner name; a name that wasn't their own, but that belonged to a corporation. Thus, I feel they should be disqualified.

Some tentative choices: The Go Gos, Buddy Holly and the Crickets, nine inch nails, Marilyn Manson. I'll try to think of some others later. (Red Hot Chili Peppers, perhaps?)

n.p. Double Vision - Foreigner

I should have known someone was going to bust out with a full list sooner or later. Let's see, what can I comment...

I like the divisions, but I think an entire section to prog rock is pushing it, as I can look at that list and see a few bands that were never really THAT big (Iron Butterfly, Procol Harem). Also, remember how I had U2 pegged as a #1 seed, and now they're not on your list?

You may not like punk. I don't like punk, either, in fact I really don't like much of anything put out nowdays. But I have to recognize its importance in the world of rock and roll. The bracket has to include those bands.

The Monkees brings up an interesting point. In twenty years, does anyone think they will be considering NSync or the Backstreet Boys, or any lousy band that comes from an ABC special? No. The Monkees are out, and even if they were to be included... a number four seed? Major dis to The Byrds, The Beach Boys, and CSN(Y).

I like the NIT idea, but Simon and Garfunkel don't belong there, and neither does Hendrix. Springsteen does, I think. And with the removal of S&G and Jimi, you have room for John Lennon and Paul Simon!

Not bad for an hour's work, though. When I have a bit more time I'll give it a more thorough inspection.

I agree with Scott on Springsteen. The Boss' real success came with the E Street Band. True fans of Springsteen feel he is incomplete without the Big Man and the boys. They are a unit.

I agree with Sparrow about Hendrix, too. Jimi wasn't really a solo artist. It was The Jimi Hendrix Experience and Band of Gypsys.

"The Monkees brings up an interesting point. In twenty years, does anyone think they will be considering NSync or the Backstreet Boys, or any lousy band that comes from an ABC special? No."

As I've said, I think The Monkees should not be included in this. However, they are far better than the Backstreet Boys or NSync. Even if they really were four solo artists under one name, they still each (Micky, Michael, Davy and Peter) took control of their musical destinies (and hurt their record sales doing so). The current crop of Boy Bands are even more of a Corporate Creation than The Monkees were. It's hard to imagine any of them actually even attempting to push the musical envelope.

One question. Do we include rap? If so, Public Enemy and N.W.A. are surely contenders.

Rap is definitely not rock and roll. It's a stretch to even call rap music. Why? I'd say rap is more of a poetic form than a musical one. The wordplay with rap can often be extremely original, but there's no actual music there!

I forgot you had said it was for rock. But I disagree with you about rap. "Thong Song" by Sisqo, "Ms. Jackson" by Outkast and "Because I Got High" by Afro Man defy the stereotype you mention. I think rap can be probably catagorized as music. But understand that most people A.) my age and B.) weaned on Classic Rock think differently. And I accept that.

How about Billy Idol on the NIT list?

Yes the prog division was the hardest to fill . . . I doubt if I would have put Gentle Giant in, say, than if I felt obligated to put them in a prog section. Also Queen most certainly belongs in AOR instead of prog. Once I started, I realized my cateogries limited me somewhat . . . I wanted to include bands like The Police and U2 and maybe XTC, but there didn't seem to be a category where they fit. Of course my list insn't perfect. But hey, at least I tried.

Personally, I would call Queen a progressive heavy metal band, or even simply a heavy metal band. As for The Police, U2 and XTC, they are (take your choice) punk/new wave/alternative rockers. (All three, I believe have their roots in punk. Certainly U2 and The Police do.)

It's definitely something to work with, which is good. But nobody seems up to answering the big question, WHO WOULD BE THAT OTHER NUMBER 1 SEED? One band people have mentioned that I think could fit would be The Ramones- definitely pioneers, regardless on one's taste for the music.

And I don't want to turn this into a board on the musical qualities (or lack thereof) of rap, but of the two songs you mention, I only know (and by that I mean I've heard) "The Thong Song." Aside from being an abomination in general, it does have an actual melody, at least in the chorus, but the key to the song is its world play and beat, both staples of rap.

Sparrow- I can see that you went to AMG and looked up Husker Du and I appreciate the effort. Actually, going from “huh?” to putting somebody on the bubble is a pretty big step, so I take it the you were significantly impressed with the context presented (I just went there myself and saw that they did a pretty good job within the limited space that they have- they’re a pretty darn good source of information) but the other part of the story is in the music itself. Other than totally immersing yourself in it for a while I don’t know what else I can tell you, but suffice it to say that Zen Arcade, New Day Rising and Flip Your Wig are regarded as major works not just because of their historical context but because of the great songwriting and performances as well as the timelessness of the music itself. That’s kind of the point, really. They took a form of music that was on the verge of self-parody and opened it up into something that has influenced the whole spectrum of music from then on. They definitely belong as a part of this discussion.

Anyway…on to later developments…Benn, I would say that XTC did have their roots in the punk scene. In fact there was a real grey area at that time between the Punk and New Wave bands, before New Wave became more stylized and synth-based in the early 80’s. Their first two, White Music and Go2 pretty much exemplify that time period. In that spirit I am suggesting that a lot of this stuff be lumped together in their own “division”. It should probably look something like this:

Velvet Underground
Ramones
REM
Husker Du
U2
The Police
Talking Heads
Radiohead
Nirvana
The Stooges
X
The Pretenders
XTC
Sex Pistols
Pearl Jam
The Cars

Ohmygod, I forgot The Clash! Well, I DID say something like this...

Maybe The Clash would bump out The Sex Pistols? Because I've started wondering if they should be in here- longevity is a concern. I'm glad you got Talking Heads in there, definitely

What about the Stone Roses? If it wasn't for them, Nineties BritRock would be a very different scene, for sure. (I'm very sure they influenced the likes of Oasis.)

Pearl Jam? Aren't they grunge? And where the heck is Devo in the Punk sections?

Um, Devo was closer to being New Wave than Punk. They tended to be too refined (in comparison to the Sex Pistols and Ramones) to be considered Punk, IMO.

"Music is a world within itself and a language we all understand."