Bleh. I can like some Elvis Presley, but he's just such a watered-down version of all the black artists whose fame he stole. His rock songs are a pale imitation, and his soft songs are dull and dated. White rockers simply couldn't compete with their colored counterparts until the British Invasion. Him and Buddy Holly are easy picks for the first ones I'll be voting off. The Animals and the Rolling Stones are where it's at in this battle.

I was right in assuming you had poor taste in music. I just didn't know I was this right.

Not my fault if you don't get why raw rock'n'roll is better than tepid music for teenagers whose parents wouldn't let them buy music made by black people.

Small Faces by Small Faces

Style: Mod, British Rhythm and Blues
Release: 1966
Length: 33 min.
Round: Rock and Roll

When I saw the genres on RYM labeled "mod" and "British rhythm and blues," I was a little weary because this round is for Rock and Roll, and this may not seem like a rock and roll album. However, I played it just in case I felt like it was a rock and roll album. I can safely say that, although I disagree it's "rock and roll," it offers the same spirit. That could save the album from me voting it off early in the rounds.

Early on, the album is extremely energetic, in fact as energetic as 1966 would allow music to be. This was "heavy mod" music. But what's cool is how this band I have only recently heard of thanks to the rock and roll list is so impressive. I honestly felt like I wanted to dive much deeper into Small Face's discography on the third track. This acts as an early predecessor to hard rock while maintaining rock and roll/mod roots and keeping a slight garage rock feel.

Batlord threatened me by saying "we can't be friends" if either this or Aftermath doesn't knock Elvis off my top choice. I admit it's a fantastic album. Not sure if it's better than Elvis Presley, though. It doesn't have the same heart and soul, but the songwriting is bordering on brilliant. The album has a lot of spirit. And I can say its quality comes really close. Still, I've heard better mod and rhythm & blues. Not much, though.

97. It'll get voted off really late in the round. I'll keep it one because it does havce the same spirit as a rock and roll album, even though I disagree on it being rock and roll.

Oh I get it. I just don't get how you can be so musically dumb.

You vote based on whether an album suits whatever fascist specifications you have for a genre? Why don't you just vote for the better album so we don't have albums winning that are inferior, but just happen to sound more like what you think *genre x* should sound like?

The whole point of rock'n'roll was the raw, simple energy that it brought to music. Elvis may have have been a great performer, but the songs he performed in the early days were simply watered down versions of better music played by artists who couldn't get on the radio due to their skin color.

Little Richard, Bo Diddley, & Chuck Berry >>>>>>>>> Elvis

So you getting around to Chuck Berry soon? Of the black r'n'r artists, I'd say he might be the best. Not quite as raw as Little Richard or Bo Diddley, but he's got perhaps the best energy of the three, and is just fun. It also helps that he's basically got just the one song, but that's he pretty much perfected. Pure rock'n'roll personified TBH. And his rhythm section is ace.

That situation is not the same as today. Black people today get a lot of airplay due to their influence on rock, blues, funk, soul, hip hop, jazz, pop, etc. Also, the vote is for the best rock and roll albums. So why would I vote for something that's not rock and roll? I'm not voting for Death's Symbolic on a smooth jazz list. And I'm not voting for an R&B album like The Animals on a rock and roll list.

Plus, if you're going to say "black people are better," you yourself are stereotyping Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly and the Crickets, Gene Vincent, early Rolling Stones, Roy Orbison, The Ventures, Johnny Cash, and The Everly Brothers.

Hear Nothing See Nothing Say Nothing by Discharge
Style: D-Beat, Crust Punk'
Release: 1982
Length: 27 min.
Round: Crust Punk

Let me get this straight: Extreme metal is a very iffy style for me. Thrash is about as extreme as I can handle. Death metal and black metal give me serious headaches. This album is as extreme as I can handle. Even now I have a tiny headache typing this. I would probably try black metal if I wasn't so morally opposed to the pagan and satanic imagery that it's known for. As far as this album goes, I have a couple serious problems with it. But I also have something to praise about it.

When I heard Bad Religion, I was aware of how their brand of punk called for very fast paces and very short times. I just realized they were basically "fast songs" and ended up liking them. But it seems that this band doesn't have the best grip on writing a song. They use the same verse multiple times in each song, which got on my nerves just like Ramones got on my nerves. I mean, unlike Bad Religion, it's hard to tell whether these guys have any talent playing their instruments or whether they're just wailing. Their rhythms just feel simple and easy to follow along with. Sometimes there is a cool main riff, but that's not the usual case. Too easy. However, their guitarist is a great guitarist. His wailings and riffs are quite clever, like Eddie Van Halen clever. And thankfully, the album's other instruments don't drown it out, entirely. Don't get me wrong. I really like punk. But if this is what I'm looking forward to in the upcoming round, I don't think I'll be participating very heavily in the crust punk round. The album is in fact enjoyable. I don't know. Maybe I need to be open to more crust before I judge this because I don't have a great grip on it and this is my first crust play. However, that'll wait.

For now, I give it an 84. Don't know if I'll vote it off because I'm not entirely familiar with crust punk.

Pagans are alright you imperialist.

You see, Elvis didn't release albums and rise to fame today.