Dude, the Animals were rock'n'roll. Just cause they weren't a carbon copy of Little Richard doesn't magically make them some completely different genre. And if you're going to call bands like the Small Faces and the Animals not rock'n'roll, then I'm going to call bull**** on Elvis for his sappy ballads that couldn't be any less rock'n'roll, and I think those other bands have plenty of r'n'r songs to make up for whatever ones you think aren't. Seriously, though, the Small Faces "Shake" isn't rock'n'roll? WTF?

And regardless, the Animals are in the battle whether you like it or not, so it doesn't make sense to vote for an album you like less, as it will only serve to weaken the thread in the long run.

I love early Rolling Stones and consider them better than their influences, which is why I said that white people didn't catch up to the earlier, black innovators until the British Invasion. And it's not like I necessarily blame Elvis or Buddy Holly for being weak-sauce versions of black artists. If memory serves, they were watered-down because the record companies were afraid of backlash from white America if they started selling their children "black music". Or maybe it was just your average, everyday, corporate pussification of "underground" music.

Why are you morally opposed to pagan imagery? Are you morally opposed to Islamic or Buddhist imagery?

What I was saying was that I don't see how being overshadowed by white people has anything to do with the opinion that black people were better at rock and roll.

It's not about black people being better at it due to genetic superiority or whatever, but black artists were just putting out better rock music in general during the fifties. But then whitey caught up, just like how it took time for whitey to catch up to black rappers.

I'd say most black rappers are better. However, Beastie Boys are my favorite because their lyrics occasionally make me laugh.

Anyway, I'm still playing Aftermath. I won't review it because I've already made my decision on whether I'd vote it off or not. It's blues rock, and barely has any rock and roll. I'm voting it off. It's great, though. I think it's my fifth RS album.

As opposed to Bo Diddley, who in no way goes back and forth between rock and blues. I would have used the Rolling Stones' debut, but Aftermath still qualifies as rock'n'roll IMO, even if it's on its way to different things, and deserves the spot more. Just. Maybe.

I really don't care what your vote is. Like you said, rock and roll is a vague term because people have their own interpretations. I go by my own definition.

As I fan of Greek, Egyptian, Indian, and Norse mythology, I'm not completely opposed as long as the content isn't violent or worshipping/praising the devil or any mythological being reminiscent of the devil. Still, I've tried black metal music before, at least music close to it, and I was getting a headache really quickly. I can't even play "unblack metal" (Christian black metal). And I admit I'm not entirely aware of all the content the genre has to offer, and am aware not all black metal albums have that content. Still, it's just to painful for my noggin. Not just black metal, most extreme genres.

I can think of a very popular book that has content praising a devil like mythological being.

Harry Potter?